Articles

Charles Fulton summarises the case of Kanwarjit Singh Juj v John Lewis Partnership PLC in which the claimant, an 83-year-old man, sustained a serious injury following a fall in a car park adjacent to a Waitrose store. A reminder that non-owners of premises may owe a duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

3PB pupil barrister Jack Felvus and specialist clinical negligence barrister Hamish Dunlop have written a case summary where the Supreme Court judgment provided clarity in secondary victim claims made in a clinical negligence context.

Gemma Ralph looks at The Court of Appeal decision in R (Peiris) v First-tier Tribunal, CICA & Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWCA Civ 1527, in which Mr Peiris was refused a bereavement payment from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority as he didn't satisfy the eligibility criteria. Mr Peiris appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.

In January, 3PB’s Tom Webb appeared for the successful appellant in the Court of Appeal in the matter of Pearson -v- Secretary of State for Defence [2024] EWCA Civ 150. In this article, Tom discusses the case and the AFCS itself: required reading for those dealing with cases concerning current and former members of the Forces.

3PB's commercial and chancery law barrister Aaron Mayers discusses the new limits set on section 994 petitions following the case of THG PLC & Ors v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd.

Matthew Wyard on the recent Court of Protection property & affairs decisions of PSG Trust Corporation Ltd v CK & Re: P (Statutory Will).

In PSG Trust Corporation Ltd v CK [2024] EWCOP 14, the Court considered how a property and affairs deputy should approach the issue of whether to inform P of the value of a civil litigation settlement.

Re: P (Statutory Will) [2024] EWCOP 12 concerned an application to amend a statutory will, for which the Court had to consider if unidentified charity beneficiaries had to be served with the application to amend in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 9 of Practice Direction 9E.

Sarah Clarke considers the case of Jones v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care EA-2022-000744-JOJ, which provides a useful reminder of the very wide discretion given to employment tribunals when determining whether or not a claim had been brought within such time as was just and equitable, and appellate courts should be slow to interfere with the exercise of this discretion.

Craig Ludlow on the case of Hargreaves v (1) Evolve Housing & Support (2) Mr Simon McGrath, in which the EAT reminds us how difficult it is to get claims struck out before Employment Tribunals.

Specifically, in this case, cogent evidence was needed to support the assertion that a fair trial was not possible because of the claimant's conduct, instead of simply relying on the ET to make this assumption.

Mark Green follows up an important change in the law since his £350,000 win in the associative indirect discrimination case of Follows.

S19A Equality Act 2010 expressly permits such claims and therefore provides important clarity for carers and others who may suffer indirect discrimination by association.

Jo Laxton analyses the case of Bauhaus Educational Services Limited v Elemide [2023] EAT 161, in which the EAT considers the guidance in Minnoch to determine if a claimant had complied with the terms of an Unless Order.

Read Mark Wilden's article about navigating copyright in the world of ever evolving technology for Counsel magazine.

Katherine Anderson gives an update on the amendments to the Equality Act 2010, in which the purpose of the regulations is to reproduce in domestic law certain interpretive effects of retained EU law which, under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, would otherwise cease to apply in the UK after the end of 2023.