Articles

Oliver Hirsch analyses the case of R v AFU [2023] EWCA Crim 23, a case in which the Court of Appeal reviews the authorities on abuse of process applications in trafficking and modern slavery cases.

The Court confirms that the police must take proactive steps to investigate a suspect’s trafficking or slavery status, and in particular consider making an NRM referral.

Jonathan Underhill sets out a short sentencing aide memoire for cases of intentional non-fatal strangulation with reference to the key cases of Rex v Cooke [2023] EWCA Crim 452, Rex v Borsodi [2023] EWCA Crim 899 and Rex v Yorke [2023] EWCA Crim 1043.

Mathew Gullick KC analyses the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Agnew. In particular, in its overruling of the EAT decision in Bear Scotland, the judgment provides helpful clarity and guidance on what amounts to a "series" of deductions from wages, a question of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each particular case.

Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of McNicholas v (1) Care and Learning Alliance (2) CALA Staffbank [2023] EAT 127, in which the EAT considered whether a regulator’s decision that there was a case to answer, following initial reports made in retaliation for a protected disclosure, constituted an “intervening act” in assessing damages.

Sunyana Sharma considers the High Court's decision in Sudheer Shabir v. General Medical Council [2023] EWNH 1772 (Admin), a useful reminder of the core principles that will be applied in professional disciplinary misconduct hearings and/or at the appeal stage.

Grace Nicholls considers the case of Macfarlane v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2023] EAT 111, a useful reminder that it is insufficient to simply tick the unfair dismissal box if a claim of whistleblowing is being pursued, and that the disavowal of a claim can indeed, rightly, have far reaching consequences for any application to amend subsequently.

Karen Moss reviews Fernandes v Department of Work and Pensions [2023] EAT 114, a case which gives practical guidance on what questions it is relevant for the ET to ask itself to determine when time starts to run in an omissions case.

Michelle Marnham and future 3PB Pupil Jeremy Warner analyse MXX v A Secondary School [2023] EWCA Civ 996, a case concerned with the grooming of a minor, in which the Court of Appeal clarified that work experience can be a relationship akin to employment for the purpose of vicarious liability. The Court confirmed the difficulty to satisfy the “close connection” test, which requires for the tort and the employment of the tortfeasor to be “inextricably woven”.

Mark Green on the case of Habib v Dave Whelan Sports Ltd t/a DW Fitness First [2023] EAT 113 and the EAT's important reminder to all involved in trials with vulnerable or disabled claimants, that proper attention to the ETBB and the Presidential Guidance on vulnerable witnesses will help reach robust judicial decisions and avoid future appeals.

Sarah Clarke reviews the case of Rajput v Commerzbank and Société Générale [2023] EAT, which appears to be the first appellate authority examining when a transfer takes place within a ‘series of transactions’ cases under TUPE regulation 3(6). The EAT also looked at the relevance of location of the business in a TUPE transfer.

Sarah Clarke acted for the successful appellant Jagruti Rajput.

Grace Holden considers Owen v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2023] EAT 106, a case in which the EAT ultimately confirms previous decisions of the EAT that the lack of an explanation as to why a claim is brought late is not a pre-requisite to extension of time being granted, but is of particular relevance.

The judgment provides useful learning points and reminders for practitioners dealing with just and equitable time extension arguments.

Katherine Anderson analyses AECOM Limited v Mallon [2023] EAT 104, a case in which the EAT provides a useful review of the authorities on what reasonable enquiries an employer should make of a disabled job applicant.