Articles

Family law arbitration is now a well-established way for parties to settle financial separation following a relationship breakdown. Family law barrister and arbitrator Imogen Robins considers what good arbitration practice looks like and examines what happens when one of the parties disputes an arbitral award or refuses to accept it.

Grace Holden analyses and summarises the cases of Deans v RBL Law Ltd et al [2026] EAT 76 and Harkins v Marks & Spencer PLC [2026] EAT 70, two recent judgments by HHJ Tayler that have provided helpful clarification on the procedure to follow when bringing and responding to appeals in the EAT.

Eaindra Cho reviews L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Limited [2026] EAT 58, a case which highlights that the inadmissibility of 'protected conversations' under section 111A only applies to ordinary unfair dismissal claims and not to other claims, like discrimination or unauthorised deductions from wages.

Simon Tibbitts examines DHL Services Ltd v Pawal Ignatowicz [2026] EAT 74, in which the EAT explores the differences between basic and compensatory fault reductions in practice and highlights how conduct after even an ET finding to reinstate could end up being considered when assessing the practicability of reinstatement.

Gareth Graham analyses the case of Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd [2026] EAT 49, in which the EAT concludes that labelling a job offer as ‘conditional’ does not necessarily prevent a binding contract being entered into.

Jack and Matthew offer useful best-practice guidance in relation to making applications to admit fresh evidence in appeal cases.

Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of McKenzie v First Greater Western Limited [2026] EWHC 868 (KB), in which the High Court considered the principles governing injunctions to restrain employers proceeding with disciplinary processes.

Stephen Wyeth summarises the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision of Williams J in Khakimov v Amova Asset Management UK Ltd (formerly Nikko Asset Management Europe Ltd) [2026] EAT 47 concerning the proper identification of the “something arising” under section 15 Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”), the role of agreed lists of issues, and the limits of appellate intervention in proportionality and perversity challenges.

Emma McIlveen examines how emotional support animals, once a personal coping mechanism, are finding their way into legal arguments and into the courtroom, carrying legal significance as part of the evolving duty to make reasonable adjustments.

David Parratt KC and Zhen Ye they explore the practical implications of DIFC Courts confirming a defendant who attempted to cancel two court orders, focused on property located in Dubai, an Enforcement Order and a Receivership Order, that had been issued to support decisions made by an English court.

Michael Vora has written an article on The Property Act 2025 marking a significant development in the treatment of digital assets under English law.

Grace Nicholls considers Bibescu v Clare Jenner Ltd t/a Jenner’s [2026] EAT 30 and its helpful summary of the approach to be taken in determining the various elements of the test under s43B ERA 1996, which Tribunals frequently need to grapple with. Specifically, Tribunals will need to focus on the Claimant’s state of mind when looking at the first limb of the test and if, at the time of making the disclosures, that Claimant genuinely believed the disclosure(s) to be in the public interest.