Articles

Technology has dramatically changed the ways in which we relate to each other and how we live our lives. In this article written for Today’s Family Lawyer, Elizabeth Adams examines how new technology could change how family law practitioners deal with case issues and evidence through 3 practical examples.

3PB's Head of Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Michelle Marham, along with future 3PB pupil Jeremy Warner, has written about the recent case of Bilal and Malik v St George's University Hospital NHS Trust. Michelle and Jeremy explore the insight it provides into a post-Montgomery landscape and the clarification it offers on informed consent.

3PB's specialist intellectual property barrister Mark Wilden has written for The Barrister on fighting against unjustified intellectual property takedown complaints in online platforms such as Amazon, eBay and YouTube.

Luke Nelson writes a brief guide to "Intervener actions in financial remedies proceedings: interests in land" for Family Law

Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of Mrs Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School (The Archbishop’s Council of the Church of England intervening) EA-2020-000896-JOJ in which the EAT considers a case involving dismissal on the basis of the manner a protected belief was manifested by an employee in social media posts, and guidance on the question of proportionality in such cases.

Katherine Anderson considers the case of Mrs N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust: [2022] EAT 204 in which the ET failed to adjudicate upon a claim though its particulars set out sufficient information for it to be considered.

Simon Tibbitts reflects on Phipps v Priory Education Services Ltd and the CoA’s guidance for approaching Rule 70 applications.

Joseph England analyses Greasley-Adams v Royal Mail Group Limited [2023] EAT 86 and the EAT’s analysis of whether the effect of conduct can amount to harassment when the Claimant is unaware of the conduct at the time.

Daniel Brown reviews the case of Alcedo Orange Ltd v Mrs G Ferridge-Gunn [2023] EAT 78 in which the EAT allowed an appeal against a finding that an employee’s dismissal was because of her pregnancy (contrary s.18 Equality Act 2010) on the ground that the ET had not considered Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd [2015] ICR 1010.

Katherine Anderson analyses Royal Parks Ltd v Boohene, Antwi and Others [2023] EAT 63, a case which asked whether workers employed by third-party contractors could rely on the principal's own employees as comparators in a claim of indirect race discrimination relating to rates of pay, under section 41 EqA.

Katherine Anderson considers the case of Miles v Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency [2023] EAT 62 in which the EAT confirmed the scope of the word "at" in the wording "at a place where" of section 44 (1)(c)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Andrew MacPhail reviews the case of Lovingangels Care Home Ltd v Mhindurwa [2023] EAT 65, which highlights the need for employers to explore all options before proceeding to a decision to dismiss by reason of redundancy.