W v Highways England & Ors

W v Highways England & Ors

The tribunal was correct to find no implied contract between the appellant and KPMG, but erred in striking out claims under section 47B ERA and sections 13, 26, and 112 EqA, as KPMG could potentially be liable without a direct contractual relationship; fact-sensitive issues regarding agency and aiding contraventions require a full hearing and cannot be determined on strike out.

Parties
Appellant: W; Respondent: Highways England; Respondent: Fay Judge; Respondent: Jason Bedford; Respondent: KPMG; Respondent: Vanessa Howlison; Respondent: Tracey Gates; Respondent: Tony Malone; Respondent: Nick Merry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment of tribunal set aside; finding of no implied contract between appellant and KPMG; section 111 EqA claim struck out; remaining claims remitted to employment tribunal.
Legal Topics
Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures, Sex Discrimination, Victimisation, Implied Contract, Agency, Strike Out Procedure
Employment Law Equality Law Whistleblowing Protected Disclosures Sex Discrimination Victimisation Implied Contract Agency +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Appellant

Highways England

Respondent

Fay Judge

Respondent

Jason Bedford

Respondent

KPMG

Respondent

Vanessa Howlison

Respondent

Tracey Gates

Respondent

Tony Malone

Respondent

Nick Merry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an implied contract between the appellant and KPMG
  2. 2 Whether KPMG could be liable under extended definitions of 'worker' and 'employer' in section 43K ERA
  3. 3 Whether KPMG or its employees acted as agents of Highways England

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal was correct to find no implied contract between the appellant and KPMG, but erred in striking out claims under section 47B ERA and sections 13, 26, and 112 EqA, as KPMG could potentially be liable without a direct contractual relationship; fact-sensitive issues regarding agency and aiding contraventions require a full hearing and cannot be determined on strike out.

Court Disposition

Judgment of tribunal set aside; finding of no implied contract between appellant and KPMG; section 111 EqA claim struck out; remaining claims remitted to employment tribunal.

Orders

  • Set aside tribunal judgment dated 15 November 2022
  • Substitute finding of no implied contract between appellant and KPMG