header-logo header-logo

12 December 2025
Issue: 8143 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Whistleblowing , Liability
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Cross-UK precedent, umbrella companies & whistleblowing liability

238294
In NLJ this week, Ian Smith, emeritus professor at UEA, explores major developments in employment law from the Supreme Court and appellate courts

In Jwanczuk, the Supreme Court recalibrated how courts across UK jurisdictions should treat one another’s decisions: respect, yes—deference, no. This undercuts the stricter approach seen in Augustine, opening space for divergence where earlier authorities are unconvincing or impractical.

Smith also reports on Madden v Waracle, where the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the legitimacy of umbrella-company employment arrangements, noting that such structures can genuinely protect workers’ statutory rights when properly operated.

Finally, in Rice v Wicked Vision, the Court of Appeal reluctantly followed Osipov to hold that employers may be vicariously liable for detriments amounting to dismissal inflicted by fellow employees—while openly signalling that the underlying logic is flawed and ripe for Supreme Court review.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll