Employment Law

This month our employment news has been rolling in from all levels of the courts and tribunals. A claim for personal injury due to workplace suspension and discipline was dismissed by the High Court who also found that legal representation wasn’t needed for a regular disciplinary hearing for a trade union. The Court of Appeal dismissed a claim of racial discrimination by contract workers, saying it didn’t fit the legal criteria, while the EAT sent back a case about a company’s holiday policy during the pandemic, saying it might be unfair to non-British workers. A postal worker’s dismissal due to illness should have considered job reassignment options, according to another ruling from the EAT, and further confirmed that future claims can be included in settlement agreements if clearly stated.

• Conduct: Civil claim for personal based on suspension and disciplinary process fails
• Trade Unions: Trade union disciplinary hearing could proceed without legal representation
• Race Discrimination: Contract workers could not bring indirect discrimination pay claim against client
• Discrimination: Employer’s pandemic holiday policy was indirectly discriminatory but justification needs to be reconsidered
• Unfair Dismissal: Tribunal should have considered the issue of redeployment as a matter of course
• Settlement of Future Claims: EAT in England and Wales follows Court of Session’s decision in Bathgate

Conduct: Civil claim for personal injury based on suspension and disciplinary process fails

In Cavanaugh v Folsana Pressed Sections Ltd [2024] EWHC 1381 (KB), the claimant, who had been dismissed for gross misconduct, was unsuccessful in his claim that the defendant (his former employer) had suspended him without reasonable and proper cause, and that its breaches of duty, contractual and tortious, in suspending him and subjecting him to disciplinary investigation, had caused his psychiatric injury. The High Court held that:

• the defendant had not acted in breach of any contractual or tortious duty to the claimant in suspending the claimant, carrying out an investigation into his treatment of staff, or pursuing disciplinary proceedings against him, in circumstances where another employee had resigned and had raised genuine issues as to the claimant’s treatment of him and of other employees;
• the mental health notifications made by the claimant had not put the defendant on notice that further psychiatric injury had been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of its continuation of the investigation and disciplinary process;
• the defendant had made such adjustments to the process as the claimant had requested, and, in any event;
• the alleged breaches had not been the cause of the claimant’s losses.

Back to the top

Trade Unions: Trade union disciplinary hearing could proceed without legal representation

In Bhogal v National Education Union (NEU) [2024] EWHC 1295 (Ch) the High Court refused to grant an injunction which the claimant sought, to allow him legal representation at a disciplinary appeal hearing. It held that:

• the NEU disciplinary rules do not permit legal representation at hearings and the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing otherwise;
• the claimant did have reasonable prospects of showing that where natural justice requires legal representation to be granted, then that will override any contractual provision preventing legal representation (i.e. as a matter of law);
• the claimant did not have reasonable prospects of showing that natural justice required legal representation at his hearing, as this was a fairly ordinary disciplinary case.

In deciding the final issue the court took into account the following facts, based on the decision in R v Home Secretary ex p Tarrant [1985] QB 251:

• the seriousness of the charge;
• whether any points of law were likely to arise;
• the capacity of the claimant to present their own case;
• procedural difficulties;
• the need for reasonable speed in the decision making process;
• the need for fairness between the claimant and other participants.

Back to the top

Race Discrimination: Contract workers could not bring indirect discrimination pay claim against client

In Boohene v The Royal Parks Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 583 the claimant contract workers, who were predominantly of black or other minority ethnicity, brought a claim in the employment tribunal for indirect racial discrimination purportedly under section 41 of the Equality Act 2010, which is headed ‘Contract Workers’. The alleged discrimination consisted of a failure to pay the claimants the London Living Wage, which the respondent paid to its directly employed staff, who were predominantly white. The employment tribunal allowed the claim and the EAT overturned the decision. The claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the claim of indirect discrimination had not fallen within the scope of s.41(1) of the Equality Act 2010. The claimants could have no claim against the respondent under s.41 because the treatment which they complained about related to the remuneration payable under their contracts with a third party and had nothing directly to do with the principal-worker relationship.

Back to the top

Discrimination: Employer’s pandemic holiday policy was indirectly discriminatory but justification needs to be reconsidered

In NLS Ltd v Zaluski [2024] EAT 86 the respondent had policies that staff were responsible for ensuring that authorised leave factored in any period of quarantine, and that staff must return from holiday on the pre-authorised date, with any failure to do so beyond three days liable to be classed as gross misconduct. The claimant had to travel to Poland following the death of his family and due to various quarantine periods he overstayed his leave and was given a final written warning. The employment tribunal held that the respondent’s policy indirectly discriminated against those who, like the claimant, are not British, and was not justified.

The EAT allowed the respondent’s appeal in relation to justification. The EAT also found that the tribunal had erred in awarding aggravated damages. Both issues were remitted to a different tribunal.

Back to the top

Unfair Dismissal: Tribunal should have considered the issue of redeployment as a matter of course

In Bugden v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2024] EAT 80, the claimant, who had been dismissed as a result of periods of ill-health absence over a number of years, contended that the employment tribunal should itself have raised the possibility of redeployment both as a potential reasonable adjustment under s.20 of the Equality Act 2010 and in relation to its determination of the fairness of the dismissal under s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This issue had not been argued by the claimant before the employment tribunal and was not referred to in the list of issues.

The EAT held that the tribunal:

• had not erred in failing to raise redeployment as a potential reasonable adjustment with the parties as it was not an issue which ‘shouted out’ from the material before it, but
• had erred in failing to consider the issue of redeployment, as an alternative to dismissal, when determining the fairness of the dismissal as this was a sufficiently well-established principle that it should have addressed as a matter of course even though it had not been raised by the parties.

Back to the top

Settlement of Future Claims: EAT in England and Wales follows Court of Session’s decision in Bathgate

In Clifford v IBM United Kingdom Ltd [2024] EAT 90, the EAT held that:

• future claims can be waived in a settlement agreement so long as appropriately clear language is used; and
• this is the case irrespective of whether it is a ‘clean break’ end of employment situation or the parties remain in a continuing employment relationship.

The EAT in England and Wales endorsed and followed the Court of Session’s decision in Bathgate v Technip Singapore [2024] IRLR 326. At the heart of the decision is the reasoning that the purpose of s.147(3) of the Equality Act 2010, and in particular subparagraph (b), is to prevent an employer being able to use a blanket waiver in relation to which an employee could sign away their rights without appreciating the significance of what they were doing. There are, however, no temporal limitations on what kind of claims can be waived. As such, s.147(3) of the Equality Act 2010 regulates how the parties enter into a statutory settlement agreement, rather than constraining what kinds of claims can be settled.

Back to the top

Further Information:

If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

Employment Law

This month we bring you a range of employment law updates. A CIPD survey revealed that a quarter of UK employees faced workplace conflict in the past year, with women, ethnic minorities, and disabled workers most affected. PwC reported a slight decrease in the UK’s gender pay gap, though significant disparities remain, particularly in the Financial Services sector. NHS Employers updated guidance on settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses and the Institute of Directors opened a consultation on a new voluntary Code of Conduct for Directors to enhance decision-making and public trust.

• CIPD Study: Quarter of UK employees have experienced workplace conflict in the past year

• Gender Pay Gap: PwC publishes data on mandatory UK gender pay gap reporting 2023–2024

• Contracts: NHS Employers updates guidance on use of settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses

• Corporate Governance: Institute of Directors publishes consultation on Code of Conduct for Directors

CIPD study: Quarter of UK employees have experienced workplace conflict in the past year

On 11 June 2024, website People Management published an article revealing that a recent survey by the CIPD has highlighted that women, ethnic minorities and disabled workers are the most likely to report encountering conflict, as commentators call for employers to recognise the importance of a positive culture.

The CIPD Good Work Index 2024, which surveyed more than 5,000 UK workers, discovered that:

• a quarter (25 per cent) of UK employees – an estimated eight million people – have encountered workplace conflict in the last year;
• the most prevalent types of conflict were: being humiliated or undermined at work (48 per cent), being shouted at or having a heated argument (35 per cent), verbal abuse or insult (34 per cent) and discriminatory behaviour (20 per cent);
• just over half (54 per cent) of those who reported conflict said they were satisfied with their jobs, compared to 77 per cent of those who did not experience conflict;
• employees who experienced conflict were found twice as likely to say they would leave their job in the following year (33 per cent, compared to 16 per cent of those who had not reported conflict). 

The report also noted that:

• people who experience conflict in the workplace have lower job satisfaction and are more likely to experience ill mental and physical health;
• less than a third (28 per cent) of those who experienced workplace conflict in the past 12 months reported that their work had a good impact on their mental health, compared to 43 per cent of those who did not experience conflict;
• a quarter (25 per cent) of those who reported experiencing conflict said work had a positive impact on their physical health, compared to 32 per cent of those who did not face conflict;
• two fifths (42 per cent) of those who experienced workplace conflict in the previous 12 months said they ‘always’ or ‘frequently’ felt exhausted, and 37 per cent said they always or often felt under pressure.

The CIPD survey found that employees’ most common response to conflict was to simply ‘let it go’ (47 per cent), followed by discussing with a manager or HR (29 per cent), informal discussions, either with someone outside work such as family or friends (21 per cent) or with the other person involved (17 per cent). Only a few (1 per cent) took the case to an employment tribunal. Two thirds (66 per cent) of people said their conflict was either fully or partially resolved. Just 36 per cent said their workplace conflict had been fully resolved. 

The report said: “It would, of course, be unrealistic to suggest that every source of conflict can be resolved to the full satisfaction of both parties. But more than a third did say they had no resolution at all.” 

It continued: “Those who reported conflict were significantly less likely to think senior managers and directors had the right vision, or that they were able, or could be trusted, to act with integrity.” 

For more commentary on the findings and advice and approaches to management which can be helpful, please read the full article.

Back to the top

Gender Pay Gap: PwC publishes data on mandatory UK gender pay gap reporting 2023–2024

PwC has published data relating to the mandatory pay gap of organisations reporting for the year 2023–2024. The data shows a decrease in the mean gender pay gap of 0.4% over the past year, down from 12.2% to 11.8%, with an overall reduction of 1.6% in the mean pay gap since 2017 when reporting started. This time around 10,408 companies disclosed their gender pay gap. Almost 60% of organisations reported decreases, though the majority of these reductions were below 2%.

The Financial Services sector continues to report the biggest gender pay gaps, which is reflective of the ongoing issues with gender equality within the sector.

According to PwC, these incremental reductions in the gender pay gap are indicative that ‘pay parity remains out of reach’, but that there are things that businesses can do in order to drive change.

Back to the top

Contracts: NHS Employers updates guidance on use of settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses

NHS Employers has updated its guidance for employers on the use of settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses when resolving a workplace dispute or ending an employment contract. The guidance includes the latest information on legislative requirements, good practice examples on the freedom to speak up, guidance on Mutually Agreed Resignation Schemes, information on board members and the NHS England Fit and Proper Person Test Framework, and links to further resources.

Back to the top

Corporate Governance: Institute of Directors publishes consultation on Code of Conduct for Directors

The Institute of Directors (also known as the IoD) has published a consultation document on a Code of Conduct for Directors. The Institute of Directors has said that the Code will be a practical tool to help directors make better decisions and provides organisational leaders with a behavioural framework to help them build and maintain public trust in their business activities. The Institute of Directors emphasises that the Code is a voluntary commitment and is not intended to create a new burden of compliance.

The Institute of Directors requests the business community and general public to provide their views on the Code by 16 August 2024.

Back to the top

Further Information:

If you would like any additional information on employment law, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

Employment Law

This month’s update includes some interesting cases examining an injunction in a would-be whistleblowing case and the effective maintenance of the confidentiality of the documents to be disclosed, the specifics of case law surrounding the discrimination elements of two quite different claims, and a complex case distinguishing worker status from volunteer status where remuneration is involved.  

• Injunction: Employee cannot use tribunal to bring stolen documents into public domain
• Disability Discrimination: Tribunal did not properly consider discriminatory element of claim
• Equality Act: Not up to Tribunal not to make a finding of liability against named respondents when the statutory test is met
• Worker Status: ‘Volunteer’ Coastal Rescue Officer was a worker when carrying out remunerated activities

Injunction: Employee cannot use tribunal to bring stolen documents into public domain

In Payone GmbH v Logo [2024] EWHC 981 (KB) the King’s Bench Division granted the claimant employer a final injunction against the defendant employee, restraining him from making further use of documents which he had misappropriated during his employment (the confidential documents). The claimant was a payment services provider, incorporated and domiciled in Germany. The defendant, a self-proclaimed ‘whistleblower’, had made substantial disclosures of the confidential documents, which he had also deployed in Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings against the claimant. Judgment had been entered for the claimant on its claims for conversion, breach of contract and equitable breach of confidence.

In the present proceedings, the main issue was whether the defendant should be restrained by final injunction from making further use of the confidential documents, even though some (or all) of it had (according to the claimant) entered the ‘public domain’ through the ET proceedings.

The court held, among other things, that: (i) the confidential information had not lost the quality of confidence; (ii) save insofar as express references were made to it in the ET judgment, neither the information, nor documents including it, had entered the ‘public domain’, so as to defeat the claimant’s entitlement to restrain further disclosure consistently with free speech considerations; (iii) the nature of the references in the ET judgment did not undermine confidentiality in the documents themselves; (iv) the protection of the claimant’s rights to confidentiality and property was a legitimate aim; (v) to the extent that open justice was engaged, it was substantially outweighed by the interests of the claimant and affected third parties, who would suffer prejudice if the information were made public; and (vi) in circumstances where the claimant had applied for default judgment on its only claim in the proceedings, namely for a final injunction, and where the judge had struck out a witness statement put forward by the defendant as a defence, there could be no question of the defendant maintaining any defence to the claimant’s claim; and (vii) legally, the balance of interests fell firmly in favour of maintaining confidentiality.

The court rejected the proposition that an employer whose confidential documents had effectively been stolen and then deployed against it in the ET waived rights of confidence in those documents against the employee unless the employer applied for extensive restrictions, including a private hearing in the ET.

Back to the top

Disability Discrimination: Tribunal did not properly consider discriminatory element of claim

In Z v Y [2024] EAT 63, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the claimant’s appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal (ET) who ruled that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed by the respondent, but that her claims under the Equality Act 2010 had been brought out of time and were to be dismissed. The claimant’s claim had included a complaint of discriminatory constructive dismissal but clarification of her case focused on the allegations of prohibited conduct. The claimant contended, among other things, that: (i) it was perverse for the ET to find that the claim did not include a case of discriminatory dismissal; and (ii) the ET erred in its approach to the determination of whether there had been a continuing act, considering each of the found instances of discrimination in isolation, when it ought to have adopted a holistic approach.

The EAT held, among other things, that: (i) the ET had erred in failing to determine the claim of discriminatory constructive dismissal, which was part of the pleaded case before it; (ii) the list of issues had not replaced the pleaded claim; and (iii) the ET had been wrong to slavishly stick to the list. Consequently, the claim of discriminatory constructive dismissal and the issue had been remitted to the ET for reconsideration along with the issue of remedy.

Back to the top

Equality Act: Not up to Tribunal not to make a finding of liability against named respondents when the statutory test is met

In Baldwin v (1) Cleves School, (2) Hodges, (3) Miller [2024] EAT 66, the Employment Tribunal had found the respondent employer liable for acts carried out by the two individual respondents. However, it dismissed separate claims against the individual respondents brought under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010, on the basis that it found their acts were misguided attempts to address a complex situation.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there had been an error of law because:

• a contravention of s.110 Equality Act 2010 arises if A is an employee, A does a discriminatory act in the course of their employment, that act amounts to a contravention of Equality Act 2010 by the employer and none of the express exceptions in s.110 apply.
• s.110 confers no discretion on an employment tribunal not to find a contravention of that section if the conditions for individual liability under it are met (as they were in this case).

Back to the top

Worker Status: ‘Volunteer’ Coastal Rescue Officer was a worker when carrying out remunerated activities

In Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency [2024] EAT 21, the respondent, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), runs the Coastguard Rescue Services (CRS) which is made up of 325 Coastguard Rescue Teams. There are approximately 108 employed staff and 3500 volunteer Coastal Rescue Officers (CRO) and Station Officers (SO). Generally, an individual is understood to be a volunteer if they are not obliged to work but agree to perform work for which they are not paid. Without consideration there can be no contract (whether as an employee or as a worker). However, volunteers may be reimbursed expenses that they have genuinely incurred with losing their status as a volunteer. As a volunteer, an individual can come and go as they please. Volunteer roles can often be ill-defined and, if some consideration can be found, an individual may find that their ‘voluntary’ role amounts to one as a ‘worker’ or an ‘employee’, thus acquiring statutory employment rights

The claimant was a CRO and then an SO. Documents that governed the relationship between the claimant and respondent included a Volunteer Handbook, a Volunteer Commitment, a Code of Conduct and a document headed ‘Coastguard Rescue Service—Detail Coastguard Rescue Officer Remuneration’. These documents explain that, while there is no obligation to claim remuneration, it is possible to do so for time, travel and expenses associated with specific activities.

The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing. His membership of the CRS was terminated and he was issued with a P45. The claimant brought employment tribunal proceedings claiming that he was a worker and should have been afforded the right to be accompanied at the disciplinary hearing.

The employment tribunal decided that the claimant was not a worker because there was no contract between himself and the respondent and the relationship was genuinely voluntary. Its reasoning included that:

• the agreement was described as a voluntary agreement;
• there was no ‘automatic’ remuneration for any activity and many CROs never claim;
• there were a number of activities for which remuneration was not payable at all, participation in which is only explicable in the context of volunteering;
• the degree of control did not appear to be particularly significant;
• the fact that an HMRC investigation concluded CROs were not workers was ‘clearly significant’.

The claimant appealed to the EAT.

The EAT allowed the appeal. It held that:

• the tribunal had erred in finding that there was no contract at all between the parties, particularly taking into account the right to remuneration for particular activities;
• there was no dispute between the parties that the claimant was obliged to perform services personally and that the MCA was not a client or customer of a business carried on by the claimant;
• the claimant was therefore a worker when he undertook activities in respect of which he was entitled to remuneration;
• the question of worker status in relation to attendance at non-remunerated activities remains an open question, which the parties may argue in the tribunal.

The EAT’s more detailed reasoning on the entitlement to remuneration and the existence of a contract included, among other things, that although use of the word volunteer may suggest an absence of intention to create legal relations, ‘volunteer’ is not a term of art, the legal status of all volunteers is not necessarily the same and ultimately, whether or not there is a contract is determined from the documents as a whole. On the documents in this case, the tribunal erred in failing to find that when the claimant attended an activity (at least one attracting remuneration) there was a contract under which he provided services to the respondent.

Back to the top

Further Information:

If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

Employment Law

May’s news is centred around immigration matters that have arisen recently as they relate to employment law, the government’s response to the ‘Sexism in the City’ report (which is actually quite an interesting read), and some updates from the ICO and EU parliament about how we should be dealing with data in the UK, and the penalties and fines if you don’t get it right.

• Immigration: Food delivery companies to introduce Right to Work checks for substitute drivers
• Immigration: CPS publishes report on reducing migration to the UK
• Immigration: Number of Home Office-approved sponsor employers, by visa route, as at 13 May 2024
• Sex Discrimination: Responses published to ‘Sexism in the City’ Report
• Data Protection: New detailed guidance from the ICO on fines and penalties
• Data Protection: EU Parliament submits written evidence in Lords’ UK-EU data adequacy inquiry

Immigration: Food delivery companies to introduce Right to Work checks for substitute drivers

The Home Office has announced that following discussions with the government, Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats have confirmed their intentions to take steps to prevent exploitation of account sharing by their drivers. All three companies have confirmed their intention to roll out new processes which will enable them to check whether substitute drivers have a legal right to work in the UK. Deliveroo has already started this process, beginning right to work checks for substitute drivers as part of the registration process earlier this month.

Back to the top

 Immigration: CPS publishes report on reducing migration to the UK

The Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) has published a report, written by former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick MP, former minister Neil O’Brien MP, and CPS Research Director Karl Williams, entitled ‘Taking back control’ which argues that recent immigration to the UK has placed pressure on housing, public services and infrastructure while failing to deliver on the economic benefits which its advocates have promised. The report sets out over 30 recommendations which the authors believe will reduce immigration, including:

• retiring the Shortage Occupation List altogether, rather than replacing it with an Immigration Salary List
• raising the minimum hourly wage in the care sector by 20–40p and setting the salary threshold for health and care visas above the National Living Wage
• creating an annual cap on each individual visa route, but creating time-limited exceptions to visa limits for NHS workers, until the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan ramps up.

Back to the top

Immigration: Number of Home Office-approved sponsor employers, by visa route, as at 13 May 2024

The below data shows the number of Home Office-approved employer sponsors, according to visa route, as listed on the Home Office’s register of licensed sponsors on the specified date.

As at 13 May 2024, Skilled Worker sponsors account for the majority of employers (over 84.23%). 8.57% of sponsors have a Global Business Mobility-Senior or Specialist Worker licence, and the remaining 13 work routes account for the remaining 7.2%.

Back to the top

Sex Discrimination: Responses published to ‘Sexism in the City’ Report

The Treasury Committee has published the responses by HM Treasury, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to its Sexism in the City inquiry report. One reform put forward in the report was a total ban on the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in all harassment cases. In its response, the government highlights action it has taken in preventing the use of NDAs in other sectors and says an NDA would ‘most likely’ be unenforceable when related to reporting a crime to the police.

Back to the top

Data Protection: New detailed guidance from the ICO on fines and penalties

In March 2024, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published new guidance (the Guidance) setting out how it will determine penalty notices and calculate fines under the UK General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) (together, the UK data protection laws). The Guidance replaces the sections about penalty notices in the ICO Regulatory Action Policy published in November 2018 (the RA Policy) and is significantly more detailed. The Guidance applies to all new cases regarding infringements of the UK data protection laws and to existing cases in which no notice of intent to impose a fine has been issued.

The Guidance is divided into three sections:

• statutory background
• circumstances in which the ICO would consider a penalty notice appropriate
• calculation of the appropriate amount of the fine

The Guidance also contains a useful table at Annex 1 setting out the provisions of the UK data protection laws for which the ICO can impose a fine.

When assessing whether to issue a penalty notice, the ICO will consider: (i) the seriousness of the infringement; (ii) relevant aggravating or mitigating factors; and (iii) the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of a penalty.

The ICO will take the following five-step approach when calculating any fine:

1) Assessment of the seriousness of the infringement

2) Accounting for turnover (where the controller or processor is part of an undertaking)

3) Calculation of the ‘starting point’ having regard to the seriousness of the infringement and, where relevant, the turnover of the undertaking

4) Adjustment to take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors

5) Assessment of whether the fine is effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Back to the top

Data Protection: EU Parliament submits written evidence in Lords’ UK-EU data adequacy inquiry

The European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee) has submitted written evidence to the House of Lords European Affairs Committee (EAC)’s inquiry into data adequacy and its implications for the UK-EU relationship. The LIBE Committee starts its submission by making remarks on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (DPDIB) currently reviewed by the UK Parliament, including the definition of ‘singling out‘ and ‘pseudonymised data‘. The LIBE Committee then provides responses to the questions asked by the Lords Committee.

The LIBE Committee expresses reserves in relation to changes to the role of the ICO as set out by the DPDIB, deeming that they ‘constitute a significant departure from the EU data protection supervision model, where the independence of the national supervision authority is an important cornerstone’. The LIBE Committee then goes on to point out that the topic of onward transfers and ‘Henry VIII‘ clauses set out in the DPIB may be factors influencing the next European Commission when deciding whether to renew the adequacy decisions for the UK in June 2025. It is also concerned that the provisions of the DPDIB permitting automated decision making and large database of personal data to be used for AI training and development without informing the data subjects or seeking their consent would be contrary to Article 22 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR).

The LIBE Committee further shares its concerns that the UK adequacy status could lead to the bypassing of the EU rules on international transfers to countries or international organisations not deemed adequate under EU law, and that the UK could become a transit country for data that cannot be sent from the EU/EEA to ‘inadequate’ third countries.          

Back to the top

Further Information:

If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com