According to Jonathan Lewis, a Solicitor in the employment team with QualitySolicitors Parkinson Wright ‘Judgments are useful reminders of established principles, even when the facts are quite particular. They can also highlight emerging issues for employers – such as cases about neurodiversity or employment-related data protection issues.’
Jonathan summarises some of the key cases so far in 2025.
Data protection – why employers need to take their duties seriously
In Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (trading as Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117, a pension scheme administrator posted annual benefit statements to outdated addresses. The Court of Appeal held that even where an individual does not experience any particular loss from a data breach, they may still be entitled to compensation. This would be for psychiatric injury if they have an objectively, well-founded fear that their private information could be misused.
Data protection – can your staff spot ‘pretexting’?
In Raine v JD Wetherspoon plc [2025] (KB) (27 June 2025), an employee was tricked into providing a contact number for a former employee by the former employee’s abusive ex-partner. Known as ‘pretexting’, the ex-partner pretended to be a police officer to get the former employee’s emergency contact number (for her mother) which was held on her personnel file. This led to further harassment by the ex-partner.
The High Court held that this was misuse of private information, a breach of confidence and a breach of the individual’s rights under data protection law by her employer and she was entitled to compensation.
National minimum wage – payment for travelling to workplace
In Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Taylor Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 956, workers travelled in their employer’s minibus from their homes to farms around the country to do poultry work. Even though the amount of time spent travelling could sometimes add up to eight hours a day, they were only paid £2.50 per hour for travel time. The Court of Appeal held that where the employer provides the transport to and from the workers’ homes, they were not entitled to the national minimum wage for this time.
Race discrimination – inferred where no plausible explanation
In Leicester City Council v Parmar [2025] EWCA Civ 952, a council employee argued that she had been treated differently to white colleagues when she was subjected to false allegations, moved from her role and investigated for disciplinary offences, only to be told there was no case to answer.
The Court of Appeal held that the employee had been treated differently by the council and its explanations were not credible. It was inferred from this that the council had discriminated because of race.
Employment status – drivers not self-employed
In BCA Logistics Ltd v Brian Parker [2025] EAT 94, drivers were engaged as self-employed contractors to inspect and deliver cars to dealerships and other customers. They were trained by the company, who insured the drivers. The company provided a phone with the company app and trade plates that allowed them to drive unregistered vehicles. Their contracts included a substitution clause, which allowed the drivers to give a work assignment to another person with a driving licence. Being allowed to substitute the person doing the work, would be consistent with self-employment.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the substitution clause was not genuine; in reality no one had substituted a driver in 25 years and the company had no intention to allow substitutions. They were not set up to deal with the practical issues if someone was substituted, such as insurance or the use of trade plates. It was unrealistic that the company would entrust high-value cars to someone unknown to them. It was also unrealistic that the company’s customers would accept a substitute who had no training in inspections.
The drivers were found to be workers, entitling them to paid holiday and the national minimum wage.
Disability and neurodivergence
In Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82 a job candidate who had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was turned down for a job at a holiday park. He claimed disability discrimination, but had to first establish that he had a disability. The individual said he struggled with communicating with colleagues and forming friendships, as well as concentration and memory.
A disability is defined as an impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities. Even if there is an adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity, that can be enough. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that tribunals should take into account a clinical diagnosis when looking at substantial adverse effect of an impairment.
Deciding if someone is disabled involves looking at what a person cannot do. This should not be weighed up against what they can do. The EAT held that the tribunal should not have weighed the individual’s academic success against the difficulties he said he had with memory and concentration. Nor should it have weighed his social difficulties against the evidence that he visited friends and performed in public. The EAT sent the case back to a tribunal to consider the issue again.
How we can help
We can advise on the obligations highlighted in these cases to ensure you have appropriate policies, practices and training in place to minimise these risks. If you have any queries or concerns about what these judgments mean for your business, please get in touch.
For further information, please contact Jonathan Lewis or a member of the employment team on 01905 721600 or email worcester@parkinsonwright.co.uk
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.