Articles

Katherine Anderson examines the cases of Stena Drilling PTE Limited v Smith [2024] EAT 57 and TwistDX Limited and Others v Armes and Others [2024] EAT 45, concerned with international or territorial jurisdiction and considers the need to carefully analyse the facts of the case and raise jurisdiction questions as a preliminary issue in the absence of an 'obvious and plain' answer.

Robin Pickard on the case of Kaur v Sun Mark Ltd and Others [2024] EAT 41, in which the deliberate destruction of evidence to prevent its inspection ahead of a remedies hearing led to the claim being struck out.

Further, the EAT’s adoption of authorities from the civil courts in relation to the suppression of evidence, and its relationship with the ability to hold a fair hearing, is noted.

3PB's specialist public law barrister Ben Amunwa analyses the recent case of DXK v SSHD [2024] EWHC 579 (Admin), a judicial review brought by an asylum seeking expectant mother against the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Ben Amunwa analyses the case of Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer [2024] UKSC 12, in which the UK Supreme Court hands out a victory for the protection of Trade Union freedoms and workers' rights, finding the UK to be in breach of ECHR article 11 as section 146(2) of TULRCA fails to provide protection from detriment for workers participating in lawful strike action.

Suffian Hussain reviews the judicial review claim of TTT, R (On the Application of) v Michaela Community Schools Trust [2024] EWHC 843 (Admin) (16 April 2024), in which the High Court decided that the policy of Michaela School to prohibit prayer rituals for all of its pupils was lawful.

3PB's public law, education and employment barrister Ben Amunwa briefs on the recent Court of Appeal judgment in ASY & Others v Home Office [2024] EWCA Civ 373.

Andrew MacPhail considers the case of Worcestershire Health and Care and NHS Trust v Ms Allen [2024] EAT 40, which serves as a helpful reminder that the issue of causation in Equality Act harassment involves ascertaining the cause of the conduct in question rather than that of the wider context; and which also provides a useful analysis of what is required to satisfy the concept of “conduct extending over a period” for the purposes of limitation.

Dr Tagbo Ilozue reviews the case of Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v (1) General Dental Council (2) Naveed Patel [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin), which offers a useful guide as to the proper approach to sanction in professional disciplinary cases based on convictions for serious offences. It also includes instructive comment on the ambit of the High Court’s power to substitute a decision on sanction.

Stephen Wyeth reviews Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller [2024] EAT 37 which deals with the issue of whether trial periods can be a reasonable adjustment in the context of existing case law and offers some useful discussion about how the burden of proof shifts in such cases.

Ben Amunwa analyses the case of Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (t/a Global Artists) & Anor [2024] EAT 30, in which the EAT upheld the Tribunal’s judgment, including its key finding that where a protected belief forms part of the context but not part of the reason for a decision, that will be insufficient to establish religion or belief discrimination.

Sarah Clarke considers the case of Vaultex v Bialas EA-2022- 001258-AT, in which HHJ Auerbach set aside a finding of unfair dismissal on the basis that the tribunal judge had substituted his own view and erred in law in respect of the range of reasonable responses test.

Sarah acted for the successful Appellant.

Robin Pickard reviews the case of Scottish Water v Edgar [2024] EAT 32, in which the EAT reminds us that there is no substitute for a full and thorough consideration of all of the evidence when determining “the cause of the difference in pay”.