6LW005 Employment Law Assignment Brief 2026/27 - Option 1

Assignment Details

Assignment Requirements

Instructions to students

There are two parts to this coursework. Complete Part 1 (Questions 1–3) and Part 2 (Question 4), and submit all four questions together as one document.

Part 1 Legal advice (Questions 1–3): 80%, approximately 2,500 words.
Part 2 Reflection (Question 4): 20%, approximately 500 words.
Overall word limit: 3,000 words.

Indicative word allocation and weighting

Question 1: 625 words, 20%.
Question 2: 625 words, 20%.
Question 3: 1,250 words, 40%.
Question 4 Reflection: 500 words, 20%.

The word allocations guide the balance of your answer. The rubric sets out the standards for knowledge, understanding, analysis, application and reflection. Presentation and referencing support the quality of each response and have no separate weighting.

General instructions

• Complete Questions 1–3 in Part 1, including both parts of Question 1, and Question 4 in Part 2. Use the question numbers as headings in your submission.
• For the legal answers, identify the relevant issues, explain and analyse the applicable law, apply it to the material facts, and provide reasoned advice. Consider competing arguments and uncertainty where relevant.
• Use relevant legislation, case law and appropriate academic commentary. Use OSCOLA referencing and provide a bibliography. Sources should support your reasoning rather than replace it.
• Apply the law in force at the dates of the relevant events in the case studies. Distinguish later reforms from provisions applicable to those events. For this assessment, assume advice is sought promptly after the final event described in each case study.
• Write the reflection in the first person. Use specific evidence from your own learning on this module and explain what you did with that evidence.
• Tables and the reference list are not included in the word count.

Part 1 Legal advice – Questions 1–3

Question 1

20%; approximately 625 words.

High-Performance Training Ltd and Sarah Bennett

High-Performance Training Ltd (HP) is a premium corporate training consultancy providing bespoke executive leadership workshops to FTSE 100 clients. In January 2024, Sarah Bennett (SB), an experienced management consultant, signed a written agreement with HP titled "Framework Agreement for the Provision of Independent Services". The contract explicitly stated:

"The Consultant is an independent contractor and nothing in this agreement shall create a relationship of employer and employee. The Consultant is entirely responsible for their own tax and National Insurance contributions."

Under the agreement, SB delivered high-level coaching sessions. Although she was free to reject specific workshop dates offered by HP, the contract contained a clause stating:

"To ensure consistency for our premium corporate clients, the Consultant must personally deliver all scheduled sessions and may only provide a substitute coach from HP’s pre-approved panel of accredited consultants if they are incapacitated by illness."

SB never relied upon this substitution clause.

HP provided SB with a corporate email address (s.bennett@hp-training.com), business cards featuring HP’s logo, and a branded laptop loaded with proprietary training materials. SB was required to wear business attire with an HP lapel pin during client workshops. She was paid a fixed daily rate of £600 upon submitting monthly invoices, but did not receive holiday pay, sick pay, or pension contributions. She was, however, included in HP’s internal performance appraisal system and attended their annual Christmas party.

Between January 2024 and March 2026, SB worked exclusively for HP, averaging 4 days a week. In February 2026, SB discovered she was pregnant and formally notified HP’s Managing Director, requesting 6 months of maternity leave starting in June 2026.

On 10 April 2026, the Managing Director called SB into his office. He stated that due to a "shift in market demand" and her upcoming absence, her services would no longer be required. He handed her a letter terminating the Framework Agreement with immediate effect, offering her one week`s pay in lieu of notice. No formal disciplinary or redundancy process was conducted, and SB was given no right of appeal.

(a) Advise SB whether she will be able to demonstrate that she is an employee of HP rather than self-employed for the purposes of employment protection.

(b) Assuming that SB can be classed as an employee, discuss whether she has a potential claim for unfair dismissal.

Question 2

20%; approximately 625 words.

Phonic Tech Ltd and Tracy Williams

Phonic Tech Ltd (Phonic) is a high-tech engineering firm based in Stoke-on-Trent, UK. It specializes in developing advanced piezoelectric ceramic components used in medical ultrasound machines, aerospace sensors, and defence technologies. Phonic controls approximately 15% of the UK’s niche market for industrial technical ceramics.

In October 2022, Tracy Williams (TW) was hired as a Mid-Level Materials Scientist within Phonic’s Research and Development (R&D) team. Her employment contract contained Clause 14.1 under the section "Post-Termination Protections":

Clause 14.1: "For the period of 18 months after termination of the Employee’s employment, the Employee will not work in any capacity for a United Kingdom based ceramics manufacturer."

TW proved to be an exceptional scientist. In January 2025, she was promoted to Lead R&D Engineer. In this new role, she was given access to a highly confidential project: "Project Echo"—a proprietary method for firing ceramic composites to double sensor sensitivity while reducing production costs. While her salary and benefits were increased upon promotion, Phonic did not ask her to sign a new contract of employment or explicitly reaffirm the post-termination restrictions she signed back in 2022.

On 20 February 2026, TW resigned from Phonic, giving her contractual three months` notice. Phonic agreed that her employment would end on 15 May 2026.

Shortly after her departure, Phonic discovered that TW had accepted an offer to start a new job on 1 June 2026 at Clayton Heritage Ltd, a traditional consumer pottery and earthenware company based in Derbyshire. Clayton Heritage Ltd manufactures domestic tableware, mugs, and decorative kitchen porcelain. TW was hired as a "Production Quality Manager" to oversee the mechanical kiln lines.

Phonic’s Managing Director is furious. He claims that TW knows the precise chemical formulations for "Project Echo" and that her employment at another UK ceramics company poses an existential threat to Phonic`s business. Phonic has threatened to seek an interim injunction to enforce Clause 14.1 against TW.

Advise TW whether Phonic Tech Ltd will be able to enforce Clause 14.1 against her.

Question 3

40%; approximately 1,250 words.

In October 2022, Tracy Williams (TW) was hired as a Mid-Level Materials Scientist at Phonic Tech Ltd (Phonic), a high-tech engineering firm specialising in advanced piezoelectric ceramics. TW was diagnosed with severe clinical depression and generalised anxiety disorder several years ago. Phonic was made aware of her condition during her initial occupational health screening, where adjustments such as flexible start times were formally agreed.
TW was a brilliant scientist. In January 2025, she was promoted to Lead R&D Engineer and placed in charge of a high-pressure, business-critical project known as "Project Echo." The role required managing a team of four male senior laboratory technicians.

Following her promotion, the work environment deteriorated. The male technicians resented being managed by a woman. They routinely made derogatory comments about her "emotional state" and left printouts of articles about "women`s hysterics" on her desk. TW complained about this behavior to her line manager, Dr Marcus Vance, on three separate occasions in late 2025. Dr Vance took no formal action, telling TW to "toughen up if you want to succeed in a man`s industry."

By January 2026, the cumulative stress caused TW’s mental health to worsen significantly. She began experiencing panic attacks and severe insomnia, which occasionally made it impossible for her to arrive at the laboratory before 10:00 AM.

On 12 February 2026, Dr Vance called TW into a meeting to discuss delays on Project Echo. When TW explained that her late arrivals were due to a severe flare-up of her anxiety and panic attacks, Dr Vance sighed, told her to "calm down, dear," and openly questioned whether he had made the "correct appointment" in promoting her.

Following this meeting, a senior technician on her team, Charlie Spivey (CS), sent a WhatsApp message to the entire R&D department group chat (including TW). The text attached a meme mocking individuals with mental illness, accompanied by a caption stating that TW was "mentally unstable" and unfit to lead the project. TW was deeply humiliated, upset, and offended. She forwarded the text to Human Resources but received no response.

Unable to cope with the unchecked hostility from her team and the lack of support from management, TW suffered a severe depressive episode. On 20 February 2026, she handed in her three months` contractual notice, explicitly stating in her resignation letter that she felt driven out by the company’s failure to address sex and disability harassment. Phonic agreed that her employment would end on 15 May 2026, and it ended on that date. She now seeks legal advice on her options.

Advise TW whether she has any claim under the Equality Act 2010 against Phonic Tech Ltd.

Part 2 Reflection

Question 4 Reflection on learning

20%; approximately 500 words.

Critically reflect on how you have managed and developed your own learning during this module. Explain how you identified and corrected an error or weakness in your understanding or legal work, and how this will inform your future learning.

• Use at least one specific example from a seminar, independent research, the formative assessment, a draft or feedback. Explain what the example shows about your learning.
• Evaluate how you organised your learning, selected and checked sources, monitored your understanding or sought support. Explain why your approach was effective or where it needed to change.
• Identify a specific error, misconception or weakness. Explain how you recognised it, what you changed and how you checked the correction. Feedback may come from a tutor, a peer or your own checking of authoritative sources.
• Explain what you learned from making the correction and any remaining limitation. Set out realistic next steps, including how you will check whether they improve your work.
• Where relevant, evaluate how working with others contributed to your learning and what you contributed. If collaboration was not relevant, focus on your independent learning; you are not required to undertake a group task.

Write in the first person using “I”. Focus on analysis of your learning rather than a chronological account of activities. You may use a reflective model if it helps, but no particular model is required. Refer to the learning evidence within your reflection; additional appendices are not required. Do not disclose sensitive personal information or identify other students.

Learning Outcomes, Criteria and Further Information

Assessment Rubric

Assessment Rubric (continued)

Sample Answer (Preview)

The following is a partial sample answer showing the approach, structure and referencing expected for this brief. It covers approximately 25–30% of the full assignment (3,000 words). As the brief requires, authorities are cited in OSCOLA style with footnotes and a bibliography.

Question 1(a): Is SB an Employee of HP?

Only an ‘employee’, defined as an individual who works under a contract of employment, can claim ordinary unfair dismissal.¹ Because the statute does not define a contract of employment, the issue is governed by the common law. The classic test requires (i) a commitment to provide personal work in return for remuneration, (ii) a sufficient degree of control, and (iii) other terms that are consistent with employment.² Modern case law also requires an ‘irreducible minimum’ of mutual obligations.³

The starting point is the label. HP’s Framework Agreement describes SB as an ‘independent contractor’, and SB invoiced monthly and paid her own tax and National Insurance contributions. These features are not decisive, however. In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher the Supreme Court held that, given the unequal bargaining power of the parties, a tribunal must identify the ‘true agreement’ from all the circumstances, including how the parties actually conducted themselves, rather than from the written terms alone.⁴ Uber BV v Aslam went further, treating employment status as a matter of statutory interpretation, so that protective legislation cannot be avoided simply through drafting.⁵ Bogg describes this as the emergence of a ‘relatively autonomous’ common law of the personal employment contract, in which standard-form labels carry little weight.⁶

Personal service appears strongly established. SB ‘must personally deliver all scheduled sessions’, and she may appoint a substitute only if she is incapacitated, and then only from HP’s pre-approved panel. A limited right to substitute, confined to the putative employer’s own pool, does not defeat personal performance where personal performance remains the ‘dominant feature’ of the contract.⁷ SB’s clause is narrower than the one in <em>Pimlico</em>, and she never used it.

Control and integration also point towards employment. HP supplied an HP email address, business cards, a branded laptop containing its proprietary materials and a dress code with an HP lapel pin. It also brought SB into its appraisal system. Clients would therefore have seen SB as part of HP’s organisation rather than as a business on her own account.⁸ The fixed daily rate also left her no chance of profit or risk of loss of the kind associated with entrepreneurial self-employment.

The weakest point in SB’s case is mutuality of obligation, because she was ‘free to reject specific workshop dates’. In Carmichael, guides who could decline work were held not to be employees between assignments.³ SB can distinguish that case. She worked exclusively for HP for over two years, averaging four days a week, and Nethermere shows that a regular course of dealing can harden into an enforceable umbrella of mutual obligations.³ A tribunal applying Autoclenz may well conclude that the formal freedom to refuse dates did not reflect the reality of the relationship. On balance, therefore, SB has a strong argument that she was an employee. At the very least, she is likely to be a ‘limb (b)’ worker,⁹ although that status alone would not give her unfair dismissal rights.

Question 1(b): Unfair Dismissal

Ordinary unfair dismissal normally requires two years’ continuous employment.¹⁰ SB began working in January 2024 and was dismissed on 10 April 2026. Even though the payment in lieu of notice makes 10 April the effective date of termination, she has more than two years’ service. In any event, the qualifying period does not apply where the reason for dismissal is connected with pregnancy or maternity leave.¹¹

HP will rely on a ‘shift in market demand’, which suggests redundancy as a potentially fair reason.¹² However, the Managing Director expressly linked the decision to SB’s ‘upcoming absence’ only weeks after she requested maternity leave. A tribunal is therefore likely to find that the principal reason was her pregnancy or intended maternity leave, which would make the dismissal automatically unfair. Even if a genuine redundancy situation existed, HP gave no warning, carried out no consultation and used no selection pool, and it offered no right of appeal. Such failures will ordinarily take a dismissal outside the band of reasonable responses.¹³ HP cannot argue that a fair procedure would have made ‘no difference’ to the fairness of the dismissal, although this may affect compensation…¹⁴

Question 2: Enforceability of Clause 14.1

Post-termination restraints are prima facie void as restraints of trade, unless the employer shows that they protect a legitimate interest and go no further than is reasonable.¹⁵ Phonic’s confidential ‘Project Echo’ process is capable of being a protectable trade secret. However, reasonableness is judged when the covenant is made, and TW agreed to Clause 14.1 in October 2022 as a mid-level scientist, before she had any access to Project Echo. Her later promotion does not revive a covenant that was void from the start unless she re-agreed to it, which she did not…¹⁶

[End of preview] The remaining sections are included in the full solution, which is available on order. They cover the rest of Question 2 (the breadth of ‘any capacity’ and ‘UK based ceramics manufacturer’, the position of Clayton Heritage Ltd, severance and the interim injunction test), Question 3 (harassment related to sex and disability, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, constructive dismissal and Phonic’s vicarious liability) and the Question 4 reflection.

Footnotes

1. Employment Rights Act 1996, s 230(1)–(2).
2. Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 (QB) 515 (MacKenna J).
3. Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042 (HL); Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612 (CA).
4. Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, [2011] ICR 1157 [35].
5. Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] ICR 657.
6. Alan L Bogg, ‘Sham Self-Employment in the Supreme Court’ (2012) 41 ILJ 328.
7. Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29, [2018] ICR 1511 [32]–[34].
8. Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison Ltd v Macdonald & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101 (CA) 111 (Denning LJ).
9. Employment Rights Act 1996, s 230(3)(b).
10. Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 94, 108(1).
11. Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 99, 108(3)(b); Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3312, reg 20.
12. Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 98(2)(c), 139.
13. Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156 (EAT); Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17 (EAT).
14. Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] AC 344 (HL).
15. Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535 (HL); Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688 (HL).
16. Patsystems Holdings Ltd v Neilly [2012] EWHC 2609 (QB).

Bibliography

Cases

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, [2011] ICR 1157

Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042 (HL)

Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688 (HL)

Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17 (EAT)

Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612 (CA)

Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535 (HL)

Patsystems Holdings Ltd v Neilly [2012] EWHC 2609 (QB)

Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29, [2018] ICR 1511

Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] AC 344 (HL)

Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 (QB)

Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison Ltd v Macdonald & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101 (CA)

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] ICR 657

Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156 (EAT)

Legislation

Employment Rights Act 1996

Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3312

Secondary Sources

Adams Z, Barnard C, Deakin S and Fraser Butlin S, Deakin and Morris’ Labour Law (7th edn, Hart Publishing 2021)

Bogg AL, ‘Sham Self-Employment in the Supreme Court’ (2012) 41 ILJ 328