ABSTRACT The decision of the Court of Appeal in Burger v Risk Solutions raises some interesting questions as to when a temporary employer will be vicariously liable for a borrowed worker. Burger gives rise to cause for concern over the impact of outsourcing on an employer's responsibilities for those injured through the conduct of the enterprise. This notes argues that greater recourse to dual liability would lead to a more equitable allocation of risk between a claimant and the employing entities.
Abstract The article notes the government’s commitment to the proposition that the Rule of Law obliges States to abide by the international treaty obligations which they have ratified. It considers a number of international treaties ratified by the UK which protect the right to strike. The supervisory bodies established under the treaties to assess States’ compliance with their ratified obligations have considered the UK and found it not to be in conformity with its obligations in relation to the right to strike on many occasions over nearly 40 years (most recently in 2026), in particular, in relation to the UK ban on sympathy industrial action (secondary action).
Following the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, which confirmed that 'sex', 'man', and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, employers across the UK have faced pressing questions about single-sex facilities in the workplace. This article examines the legal accuracy of the EHRC's interim guidance on this issue, and the High Court's subsequent judgment upholding it against judicial review. Tracing the doctrinal history from Bellinger v Bellinger and Goodwin v United Kingdom through Croft v Royal Mail to the post-For Women Scotland case law, the article situates current employment obligations within an historic common-law and human-rights framework governing the interaction between sex-based and gender-reassignment-based rights. It argues that employers must provide sanitary, changing and washing facilities on either a single-user basis or single-sex multi-user basis understood with reference to biological sex. Relatedly, the article argues that mixed-sex provision risks indirect sex discrimination against women but also that failure to accommodate transgender employees may constitute gender reassignment discrimination. Employers should therefore prioritise expanding accessible single-user facilities to reconcile these competing obligations.
This note considers the recent case of Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v The Commissioners for his Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2026] UKFTT 00654 (TC). The case concerned the employment status of football referees. Although made for the purpose of tax law, the decision has resonance for labour law. Remitted by the Supreme Court, a reconstituted First Tier Tribunal reached the same conclusion as its predecessor: football referees are self-employed rather than employed. This Case Note, by an author who is also a football referee, casts doubt on the value of the twelve years spent contesting the matter.
