Articles

Michelle Marnham, 3PB's Head of Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence, alongside future 3PB pupil Jeremy Warner have written on the Supreme Court Judgement in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.

Alexander Whatley has written, for LexisNexis, an article about breaching payment obligations under agency agreements in the case of Aston Martin MENA Ltd v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd. The analysis highlights the partially-successful claim, following trial, brought against this well-known manufacturer of luxury cars by its exclusive distributor in the Middle Eastern, North Africa and Turkish (‘MENA’) region.

3PB's commercial law barrister Alexander Whatley analyses the case of Abigal Boura v Lyhfl Limited [2023] EWHC 2585 (Ch), a case in which the High Court had to consider whether one director has standing to apply to court for the appointment of an administrator in circumstances where there is no majority of the board and no valid resolution of the board in favour of the application.

Matthew Wyard, Jim Hirschmann and Rosa Thomas write for Local Government Lawyer on the framework concerning the duty to consult in public law.

This article was first published in ThoughtLeaders4 Disputes Magazine.

Rosa Thomas writes for LexisNexis titled Provision in the home does have a place in EHC Plans (London Borough of Camden v KT)

Charlotte Hadfield analyses the case of Omar v Epping Forest District Citizens Advice (EA-2021-000595-JOJ), in which the EAT considers how to construe words spoken “in the heat of the moment” that are said to be words of dismissal or resignation.

The EAT also conducts an extensive and very useful review of the relevant case law.

Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of Steel v Spencer Road LLP [2023] EWHC 2492 (Ch), in which the High Court decided with some certainty that though a bonus scheme conditional on the employee remaining in employment for a specified time acts as a disincentive to that employee resigning, it does not constitute a restraint of trade.

Alex Leonhardt considers the case of ONEA v Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd [2023] EAT 125, in which the EAT issues its second reminder this year (following Lycatel Services Ltd v Schneider [2023] EAT 81) that applications to stay need to be determined following a decision on which forum the dispute would be “most conveniently and appropriately be tried” as per Bowater Plc v Charlwood [1991] ICR 798, and also considers the relationship between that test and a presumption against the High Court being bound by prior findings of the Employment Tribunal.

3PB specialist commercial barrister Poppy Watson analyses the recent case of The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Limited [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm).

Craig Ludlow analyses the case of Virgin Active Ltd v Hughes [2023] EAT 130, in which the EAT considers the effect of delay on the fairness of a trial and emphasises the importance of considering material differences in circumstances between claimant and comparators when deciding whether burden of proof has shifted.