Articles

Alex Leonhardt looks at the case of Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller, in which the EAT considered the application of direct discrimination in circumstances where both staff of both sexes shared nominally the same toilet facilities.

3PB Intellectual Property barrister Faizul Azman provides an insightful article which aims to provide both employers and employees with a general understanding of intellectual property rights in a copyright work created in the course of employment.

Pupil Barrister Emma Greening looks at Mr T Smith v Tesco Stores Ltd [2023] EAT 11 in which the EAT upheld a decision to strike out a claim where the claimant, who was a litigant in person, acted in a manner that was considered vexatious.

3PB's specialist commercial barrister Makhsudul Islam explores company directors’ duties towards stakeholders and creditors in the event of company insolvency.

3PB employment law specialist Andrew MacPhail considers the case Cook v Gentoo Group Limited [2023] EAT 12 where the EAT had to consider whether the ET had erred in dismissing a direct age discrimination claim.

3PB commercial, chancery and property barrister Alexander Whatley has written about the impact of the decision in Barton v Morris [2023] UKSC 3. He has been recommended in Legal 500 (2023) as a ‘Tier 1 Leading Individual’ in Commercial Litigation.

Alex Leonhardt considers the Supreme Court’s decision in McCue v Glasgow City Council, a claim against a local authority’s decision to not disregard certain disability-related expenses from a means-testing assessment.

Victoria Hamblen discusses the case of Consulting Concepts International Inc v Consumer Protection Association (Saudi Arabia) [2022] EWCA Civ 1699 and explores the implications of limitation defences in cases involving contracts for services.

The counsel team for Mrs Brazel in the much publicised Harpur Trust v Brazel case, Mathew Gullick KC, Lachlan Wilson and Naomi Webber reflect on the recent Government consultation paper looking at holiday pay for part-year workers.

Naomi Webber considers the first case relating to Covid-19 and s.100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to reach the Court of Appeal,  Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting [2022]. The case determines the employers liability in relation to serious and imminent danger claims from an employee during the pandemic.

3PB Pupil Barrister Emma Greening discusses the case Health & Safety Executive v Mr M Jowett[2022], and documents from claimant's previous employment with the respondent being  admissible in respect of remedy.

Karen Moss looks at the case Sarah Garrod v Riverstone Management Ltd [2022] where an employee’s grievance which was based on bullying, harassment and maternity discrimination constituted an "existing dispute" for the purpose of the "without prejudice" (WP) rule.