header-logo header-logo

18 November 2020
Issue: 7911 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-detail

PPE victory for gig economy workers

The government has not done enough to protect gig economy and precarious workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court has held in a landmark judgment

The Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which brought the judicial review, said one in ten adults who work have gig economy jobs, which accounts for about 4.7 million people.

Ruling in R (IWGB) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors [2020] EWHC 3050 (Admin), Mr Justice Chamberlain found the UK has failed to grant workers in the gig economy the rights they are entitled to under EU Health and Safety law. This includes the right to be provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) by the business they are working for, and the right to stop work in response to serious and imminent danger.

According to Old Square Chambers, these protections have only been extended to employees, ‘whereas the court found that their scope is wide enough to also include workers, as defined in s 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, often called “limb b workers”’. Old Square’s Ijeoma Omambala QC and Cyril Adjei acted for the IWGB.

In his judgment, Chamberlain J said: ‘This gap in protection has existed ever since the deadline for transposing the Directives, 31 December 1992, but the claimant contends that the COVID-19 pandemic gives it a particular salience and significance.

‘The workers whom the claimant represents include taxi and private hire drivers and chauffeurs, bus and coach drivers, and van drivers. All these occupations have higher than average rates of death from COVID-19 and, the claimant submits, particular needs for the kinds of health and safety measures the Directives require.’

He held the government has ‘failed properly to implement Art 8(4) and (5) of the Framework Directive and Art 3 of the PPE Directive with respect to limb (b) workers’.

 

Issue: 7911 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sidley—James Inness

Sidley—James Inness

Partner joins capital markets team in London office

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Firm announces appointment of partner as UK general counsel

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Firm appoints first chief marketing officer to drive growth strategy

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
back-to-top-scroll