Articles

Jo Laxton provides an analysis of the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals' updated guidance on hearing evidence from witnesses who are abroad.

Sarah Clarke analyses Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Trust [2022] EAT 132 in which the EAT held that it was permissible to rely on the weak merits of a claim when considering whether to extend time.

Matthew Curtis reviews Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton [2022] EAT 18, a case in which the EAT focused on what the claimant had been able to do during the limitation period when finding that it would have been reasonably practicable for him to present his claim in time.

With the festive season fast approaching Sarah Clarke reviews how employers can mitigate against possible vicarious liability for the acts of their employees during out of work events (while everybody still having a good time!).

Family law and education law specialist Aimee Fox and Anthony Collins Solicitors' Kadie Bennett examine for the Education Law Monitor how parents can minimise the impact of separation on children with SEND.

3PB's family law specialist, James Legg, alongside Alex Brereton from Mishcon de Reya LLP, writes for Family Law on how the use of expert evidence is tightly regulated by the Judges in the Family Court.

Expert evidence can only be used where it is ‘necessary’ to assist the court to resolve the proceedings. In proceedings relating to children (including claims under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989), experts are only usually instructed once the court has given its permission to do so. On the other hand, in financial remedy proceedings the permission stage is engaged when a party seeks to adduce the evidence from the expert into the proceedings (i.e. permission is not normally needed to obtain the evidence, only to adduce it into the proceedings).

Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and its associated Practice Directions provide detailed practical guidance as to applications to adduce expert evidence and how it is dealt with once permission has been granted. A ‘Daniels v Walker’ application may provide a party with an opportunity to challenge an expert's evidence by adducing the evidence of a second expert. Generally, this is only permitted where there is a good reason and, in all of the circumstances, it would be unjust not to allow the adducing party to rely on that evidence.

The full article has been published in the September issue of Family Law.

Katherine Anderson considers DB v Academy Transformation Trust (SEND) [2022] UKUT 66 (AAC) in which the Upper Tribunal held that the First-Tier Tribunal (SEND) has no power to stay a permanent exclusion decision pending the final hearing of a disability discrimination claim and considered First-tier and Upper Tribunal powers to regulate procedures or decisions outwith their own procedures.

Katherine Anderson considers DB v Academy Transformation Trust (SEND) [2022] UKUT 66 (AAC) in which the Upper Tribunal held that the First-Tier Tribunal (SEND) has no power to stay a permanent exclusion decision pending the final hearing of a disability discrimination claim and considered First-tier and Upper Tribunal powers to regulate procedures or decisions outwith their own procedures.

Joanna Laxton reviews Ineos Infrastructure Grangemouth Ltd v Jones and others and Ineos Chemicals Grangemouth Ltd v Arnott and others [2022] EAT 82, in which an employer cannot designate the end of pay negotiations of its own volition, as to do so would undermine the aims of S145B TULRCA.

Jim Hirschmann analyses PM v Worcestershire County Council [2022] UKUT 53 (ACC), a case in which the Tribunal (1) clarifies the approach to be taken to pre-funded places attracting element 1 and 2 funding from ESFA (2) suggests that new, contradicting evidence may justify an application to set aside a FTT decision; and (3) indicates that a former failure by an education provider to provide EHCP provision may render such a provider unsuitable.

In this paper, Philip Bambagiotti discusses two aspects of the privilege question:

• What is the position of in-house counsel to the creation and maintenance of privilege?
• When using privileged documents, when can that privilege be lost because of 'Substance Disclosure'?