This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) analysis from Darshan Patel of Old Square Chambers, Nicholas Chronias of DAC Beachcroft LLP, and James Wynne of Littleton Chambers of a Supreme Court decision on ‘check-off arrangements’ and whether a trade union has the right to sue as a third party for breach of an employment contract between the employer and employee, (2) an EAT decision on holiday back pay post-Agnew, (3) the Labour Market Enforcement Strategy for 2024 to 2025, (4) a Bill enacting changes to National Insurance Contributions, (5) an EAT judgment about the test to be applied when deciding whether a claimant with recurring symptoms has a disability, (6) the Bar Council’s response to the Bar Standards Board’s proposed amendments to equality rules, (7) an employment tribunal decision awarding compensation for failure to make reasonable adjustments for endometriosis and anxiety, (8) a call from the Social Mobility Foundation for mandatory class pay gap reporting, (9) results of a survey on discrimination faced by neurodivergent individuals during recruitment, (10) an EAT decision on an employment tribunal’s power to award non-pecuniary losses in whistleblowing detriment claims, (11) analysis by John Binns and Alexander Gorst at BCL Solicitors of the statutory guidance on the failure to prevent fraud offence, (12) an EAT judgment on strike-out, (13) the Senior President of Tribunals’ annual report for 2024, (14) minutes of the most recent meetings of the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) National User Group and of the Employment Tribunals (Scotland) National User Group, (15) Regulations dealing with the recognition of professional qualifications from Switzerland in Wales, (16) the IRLR Highlights for December 2024, (17) dates for your diary, (18) updates to our case, consultation and legislation trackers and horizon scanner, and (19) a new Q&A.

Reduction of a contract is precluded on the basis that the party so seeking to reduce has, by their actions, apparently recognised the validity of the contract (see personal bar and rei interventus).

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: a Court of Appeal decision finding that the tenancy condition in section 81 Housing Act 1985 can be satisfied even where the tenant does not intend to return to the premises as a tenant, High Court decisions on the court’s jurisdiction to determine whether in point of law a particular debt is a ‘moratorium debt’ under the Debt Respite Scheme, and the causal link that must be established between the negligent advice and subsequent conduct of a property developer, on the interpretation of restrictions in a nomination rights deed on the disposal of property, on a parties’ termination clause which was found to exclude the ‘breach of contract principle’, a decision that a short LTA 1987 section 22 notice period was immaterial in light of landlord’s continued failure to remedy issues, and whether or not a right to forfeit had arisen. Upper Tribunal decisions on compensation for loss of amenity flowing from a redevelopment scheme and the court exercising its discretion to modify a restrictive covenant affecting land and overruling the First-tier Tribunal’s decision not to determine service charges due to lack of information, and a decision that a lawful assignee assuming primary responsibility for obligations in the licence agreement will be party to the Code agreement. It also includes a snapshot of key property developments to look out for in 2025.

An unexpected and exceptional event that allows one party to terminate the contract without being liable for damages.

Paid holiday benefits both employers and workers by allowing workers a period of relaxation and recuperation. The entitlement to paid annual leave can be statutory (ie as a result of legislation) or contractual (ie as a result of terms in the contract of employment). This Practice Note deals with the position of: • all workers for leave years beginning on or before 31 March 2024 • workers other than irregular hours and part-year workers for leave years beginning on or after 1 April 2024 It does not deal with the position of irregular hours and part-year workers (as defined in WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833, reg 15F), for whom separate provisions apply in respect of holiday years beginning on or after 1 April 2024, including in relation to: • the calculation of holiday pay, and • the option to pay rolled-up holiday pay The position of these workers is dealt with in our separate Practice Note: Statutory paid holiday—irregular hours workers and part-year workers. This Practice Note looks at the statutory entitlement of workers

A break clause provides a party to a contract the option to terminate it before it expires.

A contract that entitles a party to buy or sell an asset for an agreed price on a specified date.

Heads of agreement are preliminary agreements that precede substantive contract negotiations. They are also be referred to as: heads of terms, memorandum of understanding; letters of intent; pre-contract protocol or term sheet. Heads of terms provide an outline of the commercial deal agreed between the proposed parties to a contract rather than detailing the finer points.

A zero hours contract is a contract of employment or other worker’s contract under which the worker’s undertaking to do work is conditional on the employer making work available, and there is no certainty that any such work will be made available to the worker.

Where the contractor agrees a figure as a ceiling for the contract sum. The contract may also provide for savings to be shared between the employer and the contractor as an incentive to control costs.

The effective date of termination is the date on which: • the notice expires where the contract is terminated by notice, whether given by employer or employee • the termination takes effect where the contract is terminated by the employer without notice (ie summary dismissal) • the termination takes effect where the contract is a limited-term contract which terminates by virtue of the happening of a limiting event

This Practice Note examines Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the EU Digital Single Market (EU DSM Copyright Directive). It summarises and explains the background to and individual articles of the EU DSM Copyright Directive, including the controversy around the wording of certain provisions of the EU DSM Copyright Directive such as Article 15 on rights in press publications and Article 17 on use of protected content by online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs). The Practice Note also covers implementation in Member States. The EU DSM Copyright Directive amended Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases (EU Database Directive) and Directive 2001/29/EC (EU InfoSoc Directive). For more information, see Practice Note: Copyright and databases tracker—EU. Background The EU has actively worked to bring its copyright laws in line with modern use of the internet and online content and it created a framework of 13 directives and two regulations,