The Supreme Court has confirmed, in Uber v Aslam (2021) UKSC 5, at para 133, that time spent “on call “counts as “working time “if the worker is required to be at or near their place of work. The leading case remains Case C-518/15, Ville de Nivelles: retained firefighters’ standby time at home is working time: (2018) IRLR 457. On the national minimum wage Judgment is still awaited from the Supreme Court in Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson- Blake.
On systemic claims, whether a decision (to cut funding on EHCPs) gives rise to an unacceptable risk of unlawful outcomes, and on whether a strategic statutory duty (under Section 27 of the Children and Families Act 2014) to keep provision “under review” is triggered, see R (M and IR) v Waltham Forest LBC (2021) EWHC 281 (Admin).
TW Logistics Ltd v Essex County Council (2021) UKSC 4 raised important issues about the law relating to Town and Village Greens under the Commons Act 2006, a much wider concept (para1) than the traditional village green, with registration having (para 2) important legal consequences. The central question on the unsuccessful appeal was whether registration in this case, under Section 15 of the Act, would have the consequence that the continuation of the landowner’s pre-existing commercial activities would be criminalised.
In Mohammad v SSHD (2021) EWHC 240 (Admin) Chamberlain J stated principles in relation to mandatory injunctions against public authorities. They include :-
On disclosure by the director of a company of a conflict of interest, see Fairford Water Ski Club Ltd v Cohoon (2021) EWCA Civ 143. The disclosable interest may be of any kind, direct or indirect : para 43. What is then required is a clear declaration of the interest : para 45.
In order for a practice to give rise to a legitimate expectation the practice must be tantamount to a clear and unambiguous representation. It must be so unambiguous, so widespread, so well-established and so well-recognised as to carry within it a commitment to a relevant group of treatment in accordance with it. It must be impliedly tantamount to a promise and the practice must be consistent. So reaffirmed by Fordham J in Havant Biogas Ltd v Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (2021) EWHC 84 (Admin) at para 60.
The ambit of an ECHR right is wider than its “ scope”. Treatment will fall within “ scope “ if it potentially infringes an ECHR right. In an Article 14 discrimination case however the treatment will fall within the “ambit” of another Article provided that the treatment merely has a more than tenuous link with the core values protected by the other Article(s). This is a less exacting test. So reaffirmed by Bourne J in R (IJ) v SSHD (2020):EWHC 3487 ( Admin) at para 82.
Westminster City Council v Sports and Leisure Management Ltd (2021):EWHC 98(TCC) concerns the contractual allocation of risk in respect of losses under a leisure services contract arising from the covid-19 pandemic lockdowns. There was for the purposes of the contract a “ specific change in law”. The issue was as to to the consequences. Kerr j gave a detailed Judgment and granted declarations.
See United Trade Action Group v TfL (2021) EWHC 72 ( Admin ), a case concerned with taxis as a form of public transport, at paras 94-99 and 165/166 on the exercise of traffic management powers, at paras 102-107 on relevant considerations and policies, at paras 175-177 on the PSED, at paras 197-207 on ECHR Art1/1, and at paras 219-226 and 249-251 on legitimate expectation.