Articles

Emma McIlveen considers the case of Hancox v Sutherland and others [2026] EAT 139, which highlights the potential for AI to reshape or embellish evidence and the resulting need for caution about the reliance placed upon it.

Emma suggests four practical safeguards that employment practitioners could adopt to preserve the reliability of evidence.

Grace Holden reviews Harkins v Marks and Spencer PLC [2026] EAT 131 and McManus v British Airways PLC [2026] EAT 155, and the guidance they provide about evaluating the question of proscribed effect in harassment claims, particularly when mental ill health is a factor.

Grace Holden appeared for the successful Respondent in the case of Harkins, both at the final hearing in the Employment Tribunal and EAT.

Craig Ludlow analyses the case of Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and others [2026] EAT 128 and considers how the finding that individual employees may be held personally liable for failing to make reasonable adjustments could shape such future claims, particularly in the context of AI.

Stephen Wyeth reviews the case of Shing v University of the Arts London [2026] EAT 154, a case concerned with the proper approach to comparators in direct race discrimination claims, and the extent to which HR professionals may become involved in disciplinary decision-making without compromising the fairness of a dismissal.

3PB's specialist housing and property barristers Oliver Nunn and Danielle Gotts St. Clair have written on the recent amends to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introducing the “respect order”.

This article discusses Parabolica Ltd v Tesla, Inc (BL O/0875/26, 26 September 2026), in which Phillip Johnson, sitting as the Appointed Person, addressed the question left open in Enerjo (O/1191/25). He held that the dissolution of a company renders an appeal irregular rather than a nullity; that no valid procedural steps can be taken in the name of a dissolved company; and that the tribunal's inherent power to regulate its own procedure permits it to dismiss an appeal where no one steps into the appellant's shoes to pursue it.

Richard Wheeler was instructed by Hollie Muckley and Tutsi Allport at HCC solicitors to act for the family in the inquest touching the death of Laionie Kennard. This case concerned the death of Laionie in a road traffic collision on 16 September 2023 due to dangerous driving, concerning speed and alcohol.

Joshua discusses a recent case where he acted for a homeowner when the possession of a grass verge between two properties on an open-aspect estate was called into question.

Emma McIlveen analyses the 2025-2026 decisions that have turned the Higgs framework into a working machine, with results less predictable than either side of the debate would like.

Sarah Bowen considers the Guidance issued by the EAT on the use of AI by litigants in person (LiPs) and its implications for LiPs and employment practitioners.

Rachel Best KC analyses the case of MacLurg & Ors v BSO [2026] NIKB 45. Recently heard in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland (King's Bench Division), the case involved 5 GP Medical advisers in a dispute about pay and interpretation of their contracts. The judgment acts as an important reminder to employers that it is the actual terms of the contract which applies, not what the “intentions” were.

Rachel Best KC acted for the successful claimants. The decision is being appealed by the defendants.

Expert planning and land-based Chancery barrister William Webster has written a succinct guide on the current planning concerns surrounding air conditioning units installed on the outside of existing buildings.