Adam Willoughby to lead Danny Smith in Potentially Landmark EAT Case

Adam Willoughby and Danny Smith are instructed to represent the respondent before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in a potentially landmark employment law case. The appeal raises two significant legal issues with wide-ranging implications for UK employment law.

First, the EAT will consider worker status in a tripartite agency relationship, specifically whether the “end user” can be regarded as the employer of an agency worker. Central to this question is whether the Court of Appeal decision in James v London Borough of Greenwich has been superseded by the Supreme Court’s purposive approach in Uber v Aslam. The appellant argues that the “necessity test” established in James, which requires a contract to be implied only if necessary to reflect business reality, should no longer apply. The EAT’s decision could significantly affect agency working arrangements and the employment agency industry.

Secondly, the EAT will examine judicial bias and conflicts of interest involving fee‑paid employment judges. The issue arises from a fee‑paid solicitor employment judge whose international law firm (in a different office and practice area) acted for the respondent. The appellant contends that the judge should have checked for conflicts of interest using the firm’s own conflict systems to avoid any appearance of bias.

Danny Smith successfully represented the respondent “end user” at first instance and obtained a costs award. The claimant has appealed both the substantive and procedural issues to the EAT.