Case law update (June 2025): Terms of agreement, gross misconduct & jurisdiction

Our employment law & business immigration experts delve into some recent case law that could prove relevant to you and your business.

In our June edition of Dispatches, we look into the following case law:

• Dobbie v Paula Fenton: Varying terms of agreement
• Woodhead v WTTV Ltd & Anor: The importance of a fair procedure
• Cable News International Inc v Bhatti: Jurisdiction

_______________

Case 1 – Dobbie v Paula Felton (trading as Fenton’s Solicitors): Varying terms of agreement

Dobbie worked for Paula Felton (trading as Fenton’s Solicitors) on a consultancy basis.

The agreement that Dobbie was working under stated that, because of the work that he personally carried out, he was entitled to 40% of the fees billed and received.

A colleague conducted work on one of Dobbie’s matters. Dobbie subsequently made a claim for unlawful deduction from wages, on the basis that there had been a separate oral argument varying the terms of the original agreement which meant that Dobbie could recoup payment for a portion of his colleague’s fees.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reviewed the agreement and found that it contained an effective “entire agreement” and “no oral variations” clause, which meant that no separate agreement could govern the work carried out by Dobbie. Therefore, because the agreement was silent on the payment for work carried out by others, and had effective clauses to the contrary, Dobbie was unable to recover costs.

What should you do?

As an employer, it is important that contracts of employment – and other forms of agreements – are watertight in order to protect you from potential adverse claims brought by claimants who wish to vary its terms without seeking mutual confirmation of variation in writing.

_______________

Case 2 – Woodhead v WTTV Ltd & Anor: The importance of a fair procedure

The 2025 High Court case of Woodhead v WTTV Ltd & Anor is a key reminder to employers of the importance of getting the procedure right when disciplining an employee following allegations of gross misconduct.

On 8 November 2019, the claimant was put on notice of redundancy by the first defendant. On 28 November, he was called into a meeting where he was told about complaints of sexual harassment against him, relating to events in 2017 and 2018. Without any warning, he was required to respond to the complaints during the lengthy meeting. He was then suspended pending further investigation.

The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 8 May 2020.

The claimant successfully argued that deficiencies in the disciplinary process caused him to suffer psychiatric injury.

The employer’s duty

Employers are under a duty to take reasonable steps to not cause reasonably foreseeable psychiatric harm at work.

The employer should be particularly mindful of this duty when an employee has been subjected to a stressful situation, such as disciplinary proceedings.

Employers will need to balance the needs of the company in continuing with the disciplinary process, the needs of the complainant, and the needs of the accused employee.

In Woodhead, the tribunal suggested the employer take the approach similar to that when making reasonable adjustments.

What can you do?

Employers should ensure that a fair process is always followed in disciplinary investigations and proceedings.

Our expert team can review your existing disciplinary and grievance procedure or draft the document for you. We can also advise you throughout the process and draft whatever is necessary.

Willans HR can assist you directly in conducting the disciplinary investigation, or the hearing or any appeal.

_______________

Case 3 – Cable News International Inc v Bhatti: Jurisdiction

Bhatti was a British journalist employed by Cable News International Inc (Cable News) – a media company based in the US.

During 2015 and early 2017 Bhatti worked in Bangkok and then, as a result of an injury, moved to the UK and worked at a London subsidiary where she carried out one day of work and was recognised by Cable News’ London bureau. However, shortly after this, in August 2017 she was informed that her contract was not going to be renewed and that she would no longer be able to carry out assignments for the company.

Bhatti brought a claim for unfair dismissal, discrimination, victimisation, equal pay and holiday pay, while Cable News said that – due to the lack of connection to British law – the UK Employment Tribunal (ET) did not have jurisdiction to hear such claims and that it should be heard abroad instead.

In the first instance, the ET held that there was a sufficient connection in the UK from March 2017 onwards, therefore a claim could be held. This was upheld by the EAT which highlighted the fact that from March 2017 onwards, London was exclusively the location that Bhatti was working from. The tribunal, therefore, had jurisdiction to hear the claim.

What should you do?

As an employer it is important to note that physical presence in the UK can establish jurisdiction, even if the contract of employment is governed by foreign law. Because of this, you cannot rely on wording of the contract to exclude the ET of its jurisdiction.

If you and your business require expert guidance on how to navigate any issues you may have encountered, please get in touch – our team will be willing to help.

To receive our e-newsletter dedicated to employment law & business immigration case law, news and updates, be sure to subscribe by signing up to our mailings.

Our Legal 500-rated employment law & business immigration team are experts in guiding businesses of all sizes and backgrounds through a range of issues that may arise.