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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll