Articles

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'?

Mariya Peykova analyses the case of MDW Holdings Limited v James Robert Norvill and Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 883, in which the Court of Appeal brings important clarification of the principles applicable to the assessment of damages for breach of warranty and deceit in the context of a share sale.

Naomi Webber reviews the Northern Ireland High Court's decision on the challenge to teaching arrangements for Religious Education and Collective Worship in Controlled Primary Schools.

Joseph England summarises the first instance case of Burke v Turning Point Scotland ET Case no. 4112457/2021, in which the ET analysed the Claimant’s reliance on ‘long-covid’ and found that it did amount to a disability and therefore a discrimination claim could proceed.

The Tribunal Statistics for the quarter January to March 2022 were published on 9 June 2022. While they reveal new claims issued to be at the same level as pre-pandemic, the numbers of single claims issued are down compared to last year, with the number of multiple claims also decreasing.

In a change of law taking effect in July, nurses, occupational therapists, pharmacists (working in hospitals and GP practices) and physiotherapists will be able to provide fit notes, in addition to GPs.