R. (on the application of Notting Hill Genesis) v Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court  5 WLUK 124 Read more >
Tina Cook QC and Gemma Taylor QC were instructed in the recently reported decision of Lancashire County Council v TP & Ors (Permission to Withdraw Care Proceedings)  EWFC 30 (09 May 2019) Read more >
Nicholas succeeded in proving that a Bank Healthcare Assistant was an employee within the meaning of Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 even though the Tribunal Judge found that: i) the Healthcare Assistant was under no obligation to accept any offer of work, and was not guaranteed a minimum amount of work; ii) the Respondent had no control, or influence over which of the eligible bank staff accepted any single assignment; iii) Bank Healthcare Assistants were permitted to work for any other organization; and iv) the Claimant was also not engaged on an assignment for in excess of one week on six occasions.
Employment Judge Pirani accepted the submissions advanced that mutuality of obligations did exist on any particular assignment, and that the Claimant should be regarded as continuing in employment throughout each of the six occasions. Although continuity of service would ordinarily have been broken, there existed an arrangement or custom to maintain continuity of service under Section 212 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant was therefore been found to have been an employee.