Articles

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.

Ashley Blood-Halvorsen analyses for Lexis Nexis the case of Quantum Advisory Ltd v Quantum Actuarial LLP [2022] EWHC 1423 (Ch), which reminds us of the importance of clear comprehensive drafting in relational contracts.

This article was first published by LexisPSL on 24 June 2022.

An employer cannot avoid the requirements of the ACAS Code of Practice (and the award of an uplift to compensation) by disguising a dismissal as redundancy, says the EAT: Joanna Laxton reviews Rentplus UK Ltd v Coulson [2022] EAT 81.

Alex Leonhardt reviews Department for Work and Pensions v Mrs Susan Boyers [2022] EAT 76, in which the EAT gives useful advice on the above matters (for the second time in the same case).

Daniel Brown analyses Mr A Rehman v DHL Services Ltd [2022] EAT 90, a case which highlights the importance of making sure that technical terms are explained.

Colin McDevitt considers the case of Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Limited, EAT, EA-2021-000437-VP, in which the ET and EAT concluded that the facts of the case were not consistent with the Claimant holding a reasonable belief that there were serious and imminent circumstances of danger both at work and in other places outside his home, that prevented him returning to work.

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.