Articles

Robin Pickard considers Abel Estate Agent Ltd & Ors v Elizabeth Reynolds [2025] EWCA Civ 1357, a case which provides clarity on the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been the subject of early conciliation.

Alex Leonhardt reflects upon Sogbodjor v WKCIC t/a Capital City College Group 2219358/2024, a recent case in the Central London Employment Tribunal, which raised questions of the limits of employee’s powers, and the important distinctions between affirmation and acquiescence.

Alex represented the successful claimant in the proceedings.

In Huntley v Siemens Healthcare Limited [2025] EAT 152, the EAT reminds both parties that they must keep in mind the prospects of their claims and defences at all stages of litigation. Grace Nicholls' analysis of the case also highlights that targeted costs applications may result in greater success.

Following his talk on Remedies in Complex Cases at 3PB’s well-attended Employment Law Conference last month Stephen Wyeth reviews the ‘hot off the press’ EAT decision of Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151, the latest appellate decision dealing with how tribunals should evaluate future loss in unfair dismissal cases.

This article analyses how the UK’s export-control, patent secrecy and investment-screening regimes apply to AI models and datasets that generate dual-use or defence-relevant outputs. It argues that legality turns on capability and potential end-use: an AI system may require a licence because of its technical performance or because the exporter knows or suspects its outputs could support WMD programmes.

Following the Supreme Court's April judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has now (5 September 2025) shared its updated Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations with the Minister for Women and Equalities for approval. Katherine Anderson considers the legal and practical implications of the For Women Scotland Ltd judgment for schools.

John Friel and Jim Hirschmann revisit Phelps v The London Borough of Hillingdon [2001] 2 A.C. 619; [2000] E.L.R and examine in particular how duty of care and vicarious liability has evolved as far as education professionals and local authorities are concerned.

Robin Pickard reviews Aslam v Transport UK London Bus Ltd (formerly known as Abellio London Ltd) [2025] EAT 113, in which the EAT considers whether a claimant had pleaded a victimisation claim, and analyses the impact of the case on applications for reconsideration and appeals where the Tribunal addresses (or does not address) a claim that is not explicitly pleaded.

Stephen Wyeth analyses CX v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EAT 114 to identify what practitioners might glean from this latest decision on amendment applications and how best to address them.

Sarah Clarke on the case of Mesuria v Eurofins Forensics Services Ltd [2025] EAT 103, and the importance for practitioners tending to preliminary hearings on time limits to correctly identify if they will request strike out under Rule 38, or a preliminary determination under Rule 52, as that will fundamentally alter both how the hearing is prepared for and how it is conducted.

Sarah Bowen analyses the case of Leicester City Council v Bindu Parmar [2025] EWCA Civ 952, a race discrimination case in which the Court of Appeal makes observations on actual, hypothetical, and 'evidential' comparators and evaluates if the ET had misidentified the comparators in its finding for the claimant.

In Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, the Supreme Court has offered timely and much-needed clarification on the operation of the sharing principle in financial remedy cases, particularly in relation to the matrimonialisation of non-matrimonial property. For practitioners, this is now essential reading.