Skip to main content

Landmark Employment cases

Foundational UK employment authorities — unfair dismissal, discrimination, Equality Act — ordered by citation impact.

34 landmarks, ordered by citation impact.

  1. 01

    Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions

    [1968] 2 QB 497 · Queen's Bench Division · 1968

    Court establishes three-part test for employee versus contractor status

  2. 02

    Market Investigations v Minister of Social Security

    [1969] 2 QB 173 · Queen's Bench Division · 1969

    Multiple factor test determines employee versus independent contractor status comprehensively.

  3. 03

    Western Excavating v Sharp

    [1978] QB 761 · Court of Appeal · 1978

    Court of Appeal establishes contractual test for constructive dismissal claims

  4. 04

    British Home Stores v Burchell

    [1980] ICR 303 · Employment Appeal Tribunal · 1980

    Employment Appeal Tribunal establishes three-stage test for fair dismissal

  5. 05

    Williams v Compair Maxam

    [1982] ICR 156 · Employment Appeal Tribunal · 1982

    Employment tribunal sets landmark principles for fair redundancy procedures

  6. 06

    Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones

    [1983] ICR 17 · Employment Appeal Tribunal · 1983

    Employment Appeal Tribunal establishes 'band of reasonable responses' test for unfair dismissal

  7. 07

    Mandla v Dowell Lee

    [1983] 2 AC 548 · House of Lords · 1983

    Sikhs constitute racial group protected from indirect discrimination in schools

  8. 08

    Nethermere v Gardiner

    [1984] ICR 612 · Court of Appeal · 1984

    Homeworkers can be employees despite irregular hours and flexible arrangements

  9. 09

    TUPE — Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir CV

    [1986] 2 CMLR 296 · European Court of Justice · 1986

    ECJ established multi-factor test for identifying business transfers under EU law.

  10. 10

    Faccenda Chicken v Fowler

    [1987] Ch 117 · Court of Appeal · 1987

    Court defines post-employment confidentiality duties for trade secrets and business information

  11. 11

    Polkey v AE Dayton Services

    [1988] AC 344 · House of Lords · 1988

    House of Lords rules unfair dismissal requires proper procedure regardless of outcome

  12. 12

    Discrimination — James v Eastleigh Borough Council

    [1990] 2 AC 751 · House of Lords · 1990

    Direct discrimination established without need to prove discriminatory intention or motive.

  13. 13

    Equal Pay — Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority

    [1993] ECR I-5535 · European Court of Justice · 1993

    Significant pay gaps between gendered occupations can shift burden to employers.

  14. 14

    Trade Unions — Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson

    [1995] 2 AC 454 · House of Lords · 1995

    Employers may offer inducements to abandon collective bargaining under domestic law.

  15. 15

    Malik v BKCI

    [1998] AC 20 · House of Lords · 1998

    House of Lords establishes employer duty of mutual trust and confidence

  16. 16

    Hashman and Harrup v United Kingdom

    (1999) 30 EHRR 241 · European Court of Human Rights · 1999

    Vague binding over orders violate Article 10 freedom of expression requirements.

  17. 17

    Carmichael v National Power

    [1999] 1 WLR 2042 · House of Lords · 1999

    House of Lords clarifies employment status test for casual workers

  18. 18

    Nagarajan v London Regional Transport

    [2000] 1 AC 501 · House of Lords · 2000

    Racial discrimination can be unconscious; tribunals should examine whether race influenced treatment.

  19. 19

    Working Time — R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte BECTU

    [2001] ECR I-4881 · European Court of Justice · 2001

    Right to paid annual leave accrues immediately without qualifying employment periods.

  20. 20

    Johnson v Unisys

    [2001] UKHL 13 · House of Lords · 2001

    No tort claims for unfair dismissal - statutory regime provides exclusive remedy

  21. 21

    Whistleblowing — Parkins v Sodexho Ltd

    [2002] IRLR 109 · Employment Appeal Tribunal · 2002

    Whistleblowing protection requires good faith but permits mixed motives including personal grievance.

  22. 22

    Shamoon v Chief Constable

    [2003] UKHL 11 · House of Lords · 2003

    House of Lords clarifies direct discrimination test in employment cases

  23. 23

    Eastwood v Magnox Electric

    [2004] UKHL 35 · House of Lords · 2004

    Wrongful dismissal claims causing psychiatric injury cannot be pursued in tort courts.

  24. 24

    James v London Borough of Greenwich

    [2008] EWCA Civ 35 · Court of Appeal · 2008

    Agency workers cannot claim equal pay with permanent staff at user organization.

  25. 25

    Coleman v Attridge Law

    [2008] IRLR 722 · European Court of Justice · 2008

    Discrimination law protects employees facing discrimination by association with disabled persons.

  26. 26

    Gisda Cyf v Barratt

    [2010] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2010

    Dismissal letter time limits run from reading, not delivery

  27. 27

    Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital

    [2011] UKSC 58 · Supreme Court · 2011

    Dismissal-related claims cannot circumvent employment tribunals through tort law.

  28. 28

    Autoclenz v Belcher

    [2011] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2011

    Courts must examine reality of work relationship over written contract terms

  29. 29

    Homer v Chief Constable

    [2012] UKSC 15 · Supreme Court · 2012

    Supreme Court clarifies justification test for indirect age discrimination claims

  30. 30

    Seldon v Clarkson Wright

    [2012] UKSC 16 · Supreme Court · 2012

    Supreme Court allows mandatory retirement if properly justified and proportionate

  31. 31

    Essop v Home Office

    [2017] UKSC 27 · Supreme Court · 2017
  32. 32

    Pimlico Plumbers v Smith

    [2018] UKSC 29 · Supreme Court · 2018

    Supreme Court finds plumber was worker despite self-employment contract

  33. 33

    Uber BV v Aslam

    [2021] UKSC 5 · Supreme Court · 2021

    Supreme Court rules Uber drivers are workers, not self-employed contractors

  34. 34

    D.E.L.T.A. Merseyside Limited and another v Uber Britannia Limited

    [2025] UKSC 31 · United Kingdom Supreme Court · 2025

    Whether private hire vehicle operator must contract as principal with passenger or may use agency/intermediary model