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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll