In this article, we report on 3 Supreme Court decisions, 1 of which was handed down this week, and 2 of which are awaiting the handing down of judgment.
The first case of interest is Pimlico Plumbers Limited v Smith  EWCA Civ 51. We previously discussed the Court of Appeal judgement of Pimlico Plumbers, in edition 173 (here). The court found that a plumber, carrying out plumbing and maintenance work on behalf of a plumbing company, was a ‘worker’, within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 s.230(3)(b) and not a self-employed contractor.
The case is on appeal from the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
- ‘Whether the respondent was a 'worker' within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998;
- Whether the respondent was in "employment" within s.83(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.’[i]
This case is relevant because it will affect the position of employee status and have implications in occupational disease law.
The second case of interest is Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Limited v Haven Insurance Company Limited. In edition 217 (here), we summarised the outcome the Court of Appeal hearing. The case, in short, was about advancing claims in the MoJ Portal and insurers attempting to settle directly with claimants to avoid paying fixed Portal costs.
With both the Pimlico and Gavin Edmondson appeals, we await the handing down of judgments.
Barton v Wright Hassall LLP  UKSC 12, however, which is the third case of interest, was handed down on Wednesday. Previously, we discussed the Court of Appeal ruling, in edition 136 (here). This case concerned a litigant in person, who fell short of effecting service by email. What constitutes ‘good service’?
We will discuss the implications of the Barton appeal in next week’s issue of BC Disease News.