Abstract This article considers the contribution of Sir Patrick Elias to our understanding of causation in labour law. For these purposes, the concept of causation is considered in its wide sense, embracing issues which arise in claims of both unfair dismissal and discrimination, and at both liability and remedy stages. Sir Patrick’s judicial decisions include landmark authorities concerning the legal tests of liability in such claims, and they analyse the reasoning applicable to the varied tasks faced by tribunals when assessing compensation for an unfair or discriminatory dismissal. These decisions exemplify Sir Patrick’s distinctive clarity of expression, subtlety of analysis, and sensitivity to industrial reality.

Abstract The contract of franchise has received a surprising lack of attention in the UK courts. The decision in Ellis v John Benson [2025] EWHC 2096, where a franchisee was successful in establishing that the contract with the franchisor contained an implied obligation of good faith, is therefore of particular note. The decision is likely to be of interest to employment lawyers, not least because of the strong similarities between many franchisees and employees.

Abstract This article argues that in his significant contribution to discrimination law, Patrick Elias’s judgments are grounded and purposive. They are purposive because they recognise that employment legislation must generally be interpreted as protective of employees because of the power imbalance between the parties. They are also grounded. They are ‘grounded in fact’ because they are practical and realistic about working life for employers and workers. They are ‘grounded in law’ because they recognise the limits of the law and that the law—even discrimination law—cannot address all injustice, real or perceived. They are also ‘grounded in the system’ because they recognise that in the current liberal (social?) market economy, employers have legitimate interests, as do employees. By grounding his judgments in the system, Elias might be seen as conservative. However, this conservatism might be considered radical in the face of much current academic discourse. Using examples from his judgments, we illustrate both the grounded and purposive approach adopted by Elias, its theoretical underpinnings, how it has been applied to labour law more widely, and how it might be used to address some thorny issues in discrimination law in the future.

Abstract Despite over 50 years of equal pay legislation in the UK, the gender pay gap stubbornly persists. This is in part due to its dependence on an individual complaints system demonstrably ill-suited to the task, both because respondents have been able to utilize procedural requirements to delay and prolong claims, and because of the ways in which the substantive rights have been formulated and interpreted. Given that many of these problems have been apparent for decades, it is apposite to consider the many equal pay cases presided over by Elias LJ between 2005 and 2009 when he was president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. A close examination of these 20 cases reveals Elias LJ’s rigour, his patient commitment to unravelling an increasingly complex area of the law, but also his wry humour and pertinent social comments during the course of the journey. This article begins by setting the context and demonstrates the dysfunctionality of the complaints-led process as reflected in the cases canvassed. The article then turns to substantive issues, which despite their apparent straightforward wording, have been interpreted in increasingly complex and technical ways. The conclusion considers new developments and ways forward. The article demonstrates Elias LJ’s long-lasting contribution to both doctrine and principle in relation to equal pay. It also considers the impetus for reform created by the New Labour government and suggests ways in which the lessons learned during that period, as well as more recent developments from the European Union, could be translated into real improvements in equal pay legislation. It is hoped that the impetus for reform will release equal pay claims from sole reliance on individual complaints. Moreover, change needs to go well beyond the current anaemic proposals for pay transparency. Instead, a collective response requiring proactive measures by employers across the whole pay scale, with close participation by workers and their representatives, is urgently needed.

Abstract Sir Patrick Elias occupies a unique position in modern British employment law as an academic, practitioner and judge during the period of its expansion from the 1970s to the present day. His insistence on the need for conceptual clarity in legal reasoning has helped prevent the law falling into atrophy and confusion during a time when the volume and granularity of statutory texts was increasing year on year. His employment status case law, while clear, is nonetheless cautiously expressed and is consistent with an approach more widely shared across the British judiciary, of avoiding purpose-orientated reasoning when interpreting legal concepts in their statutory context. A tendency towards formalism in legal reasoning does not necessarily make the law more predictable or straightforward to apply. The emergence of a highly elaborate jurisprudence on the employment status question has fuelled litigation over matters which could have been settled more straightforwardly had a more policy-aware approach to interpretation been adopted. There are historical precedents for retiring the courts from the task of determining employment status to which policy makers might wish to give due consideration.

Abstract This article reviews the contribution of Sir Patrick Elias to the interpretation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, principally through an examination of a selection of the most significant of his judgments concerning the transfer legislation. Not only did these decisions bring clarity to the interpretation of potentially problematic and practically important aspects of the transfer legislation. They also demonstrate how questions of when purposive, as opposed to traditional (and literal) domestic, statutory interpretation should be adopted can be navigated properly and effectively.

ABSTRACT The adoption of Directive 2024/1499 (EU) and Directive 2024/1500 (EU) establishes, for the first time, binding minimum standards for National Equality Bodies (EBs), addressing long-recognised deficiencies in the EU anti-discrimination framework. This note situates the Standards Directives within the broader evolution of EU equality law, tracing the challenges that shaped their adoption. It analyses the Directives’ normative content, with particular attention to provisions on institutional independence, adequacy of resources, victim assistance, and litigation powers. The discussion further considers the interpretative challenges arising from the balance between harmonisation and national procedural autonomy, as well as the interaction of the new standards with existing directives on equal treatment. The note concludes that the Standards Directives consolidate the legal position of EBs as key actors in the enforcement of EU equality law and may serve as a model for international best practice. Their effectiveness, however, will largely depend on the quality of national transposition and implementation. Member States should treat the Directives as a springboard, going beyond minimum standards to realise the overarching objective of strengthening equal treatment.

Abstract This paper explores how platform workers are excluded from accessing key collective labour rights in Latin America and what measures have been taken to formalise the sector. It argues that platforms use a combination of management technologies and a form of freedom based on choice, known as freedom as non-interference, which can be found in their business narrative, and in the construction of the so-called binary divide between employees and employers in several national jurisdictions. This contribution tests these propositions in the context of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC-27/21 and the recent Chilean reform on platform work. Lastly, this contribution discusses how an alternative idea of freedom, known as freedom as non-domination, would be a suitable alternative to freedom as non-interference to address platform workers’ exclusion from collective labour rights.