The Supreme Court today made three permission to appeal decisions and in all three cases the permission was granted. In this article we preview the cases and consider the issues at stake.

Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith

The first case involving the controversial Pimlico Plumbers Ltd relates to employment law and in particular the definition of a “worker” under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations as well as “employment” under the Equality Act 2010.

Gary Smith worked for the firm for six years but was regarded as self-employed instead of an employee. This model of the so-called ‘gig economy’ has attracted widespread criticism including from leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn.

The upcoming decision of the Supreme Court will have potentially huge ramifications for a number of people including those who work for companies like Deliveroo and Uber. For a long time there has been uncertainty over the status of such people and the Justices will have the opportunity to add some long overdue clarification to the rights of people in similar situations.

Mills v Mills

In the first of two permission to appeal decisions involving family law, this case considers the periodical payments that are made after a divorce under s. 31(7) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

After Mr. and Mrs. Mills got divorced in 2002 a consent order was made for the husband to pay the wife £1,199 per month. In 2014 the husband sought to either discharge or reduce the payment because the wife was able to go back to work and also because she had poorly managed the sum she had been awarded in 2002. Meanwhile the wife, contemporaneously, tried to vary the payments upwards arguing that this was required to meet her basic needs.

The Court of Appeal found in favour of the wife but now the case heads to the Supreme Court on a single question surrounding the distinction between the original capital payment at the time of the divorce and these capital payments made on a monthly basis since. In particular the wife’s housing costs were taken into account in the original 2002 capital sum and so it is argued that the Court of Appeal was wrong to take this into account again when varying the periodical payment under s. 31(7).

This case will be interesting as the court considers if certain decisions made at the time of a divorce are final or can be subject to change at a later date. On the one hand variations can create a high degree of uncertainty but at the same time it is also necessary to make sure that a wife’s needs are met after a divorce is finalised.

Owens v Owens

The second permission to appeal decision that concerns family law is seemingly of less direct importance to the practicalities of divorce but does still raise an interesting point of law.

As many students of family law are aware there are five facts of divorce listed under s. 1(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The reason that this is not normally of great concern is that most divorces are unchallenged but the same is not true in the present case of Owens v Owens.

Here the common fact under s. 1(2)(b) was used. This states

that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;

The husband challenged this and argued that his behaviour was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements. Generally s. 1(2)(b) is a bit of a catch-all when it comes to divorce and arguably the law has become much less robust over the years so it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court returns to a harder line.