Articles

Daniel Brown on the case of Boohene & Others v The Royal Parks Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 583, which highlights what can go wrong in indirect discrimination claims when careful analysis of the issues and the inclusion of evidence to prove the case are missing.

This case also offers a useful analysis of the scope of s.41 Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA 2010’) (liability of principals in relation to contract workers).

3PB expert commercial, costs and property law barrister Cheryl Jones and pupil barrister Jack Felvus have written on the relevance of Part 36 offers in the legal costs arising from probate litigation.

Robin Pickard considers Ballerino v The Racecourse Association Ltd [2024] EAT 98, a case which highlights the legal difference between a business reorganisation and a redundancy; and the care that the ET and practitioners need to take when approaching redundancy situations in the context of a claim for maternity discrimination.

Robin acted for the successful claimant in the EAT.

Emma Greening reviews the case of NSL Ltd v Mr P Zaluski [2024] EAT 86, which addresses the factors the tribunal should balance when considering an objective justification defence in an indirect discrimination claim.  The case confirms the focus of the analysis must be on group disadvantage as weighed against employer need.

Ben Amunwa analyses the case of Adekoya & Ors v Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd [2024] EAT 72, which found that the Employment Tribunal erred when it dismissed the claimants’ claims for breach of contract challenging the withdrawal of post-termination travel benefits from them in reliance on a contractual agreement that had not been sent to the claimants.

Ben considers the resulting practical implications for practitioners, employers and employees.

Grace Holden reviews Parmar v Leicester City Council [2024] EAT 85, a race discrimination case in which the EAT provides a useful summary of the principles applicable when considering the shifting burden of proof under s136 Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’).

Grace also provides some tips to remember when bringing an appeal.

Matthew Wyard writes about the Upper Tribunal's decision in MM (as alternative person for C) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2024] UKUT 179 (AAC), and the important points the judgment raises in relation to the conduct of proceedings before the SEND Tribunal when impaired litigation capacity is being considered.

Matthew represented the successful appellant.

Matthew Wyard analyses the Upper Tribunal's decision in MM (as alternative person for C) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2024] UKUT 179 (AAC) and the UT's updated guidance on mental capacity and the First tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make health and social care recommendations

Matthew represented the successful appellant, instructed by Geldards LLP.

Following the announcement of a General Election to take place on 4 July 2024, Andrew MacPhail explores whether we can expect a greater number of unfair dismissal claims from the end of 2024 by virtue of Labour’s planned changes to workplace rights.

Naomi Webber reviews Mr Martin Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency [2024] EAT 71, in which the EAT found that a volunteer was a worker, in circumstances where he received remuneration for his activities as a coastal rescue officer.

The case confirms that ‘volunteer’ is not a term of art (or law), and each relationship will have to be considered on its own facts.

In answering what would happen if a defendant, having pleaded guilty, was later discovered to be unfit, Kate Davies considers the judgments in Ismael and Marcantoni.

Robin Pickard considers the case of Z v Y [2024] EAT 63, which addresses the importance of accurately identifying a litigant in person’s pleaded claims and ensuring that lists of issues mirror the pleadings.

The case also provides a useful recap of the principles that govern “conduct extending over a period” under s.123(3)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.