Articles

Oliver Hirsch analyses Knightly v Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EAT 63, a case in which practitioners are reminded to be careful about drawing links between a claimant's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.

Nicola Frost examines if the court should automatically disregard pre-nuptial agreements that fail to adhere to the ‘28-Day Rule’, in this article first published in Family Law.

Elliott Stenson reviews Ali v Heathrow Express Operating Company Limited and another [2022] EAT 54, a case in which the EAT could not overturn the ET's decision as it was not perverse or insufficiently reasoned.

Luke Nelson surveys the ‘lay of the land’, three months after the FRC Efficiency Statement.  At its launch, the Efficiency Statement was heralded by some as a necessary step towards collaborative working in financial remedies. Others queried whether the front-loading brought about by its proposals would detrimentally affect relations between lay clients. Luke's article considers which side of the argument is borne out now.

Grace Nicholls analyses Pryce v Baxterstorey Limited, EAT, EA-2020-000323-BA, a case which sets a clear and unequivocal warning to Claimants to obtain the necessary documentation in advance of submission of an ET1.

Philip Bambagiotti's analysis of the notices & orders provisions of the Building Safety Act 2022 (UK).

3PB’s specialist family and education law barrister Aimee Fox examines a number of cases in which recordings have been admitted and their impact on the proceedings for LexisNexisUK Family Law.

Sarah Bowen analyses Guardian News & Media Limited v (1) Dmitri Rozanov (2) EFG Private Bank Limited (Media Lawyers Association Intervening), a case in which the EAT applies the Open Justice Principle in granting journalists access to skeleton arguments, witness statements and documents referred to in the judgment.

Sarah Clarke analyses Allen v Primark Stores Ltd [2022] EAT 57, a case in which the EAT reminds us of the need to carefully consider the relevant provision, criterion or practice (PCP) when constructing the pool for comparison, making sure that the potential pool for comparison suitably tests the discrimination that is being alleged.

Katherine Anderson reviews Mendy v Motorola Solutions UK Ltd and Others [2022] EAT 47, a case in which we are reminded that failure to adequately particuliarise a claim does not mean that it is not being pursued.

Alex Leonhardt analyses Clark v Middleton and anor [2022] EAT 31, a case in which the EAT considered the ET's discretion to make (or not make) an award of compensation for breaches of TUPE Regulations, and the effect of withdrawal of a claim on a defendant's liability to pay compensation, in circumstances where the claimant has no freestanding right to bring a claim against
them.

Sarah Bowen summarises the case of Kumar v MES Environmental Limited [2022] EAT 60, in which the EAT determined that a party may apply for a transcript, subject to paying the applicable fee and complying with the associated established protocols.