Articles

Easygroup v Beauty Perfectionists [2021] EWHC 3385 (Ch)

3PB’s specialist intellectual property Third Six pupil barrister Mark Wilden analyses the decision of the High Court in Easygroup v Beauty Perfectionists [2021] EWHC 3385 (Ch).

Craig Ludlow reviews Hope v British Medical Association EA-2021-000187-JOJ, in which the EAT reminds us that the starting point in determining if a dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct is unfair, is always section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and not whether the conduct relied upon was capable of amounting to gross misconduct in the contractual sense.

Andrew MacPhail analyses Hovis Limited v Mr W Louton EA-2020-000973-LA, and highlights the importance for parties in a case to always carefully consider if they are in a position to call witnesses who can give direct evidence on any disputed factual findings.

Daniel Brown reviews Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Limited (EA-2020-000123-BA), a case which demonstrates that the mere fact that a director has done work for and received payment from a company will not always be sufficient to establish a worker or employment relationship.

Sarah Clarke analyses Burn v Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 1971, in which the Court of Appeal's obiter comments could make the concept of fairness in disciplinary procedures an implied term, reducing employees' burden to show breaches of trust and confidence.

Specialist intellectual property barrister, Nicole Bollard has issued an update on the Trade Marks and International Trade Marks (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021, a must-read for all UK-based intellectual property specialists.

Gareth Graham reviews Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1694, in which the Court of Appeal provides a useful reminder that any assessment as to whether a person with an episodic condition is disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act must be carried out by way of careful analysis of all the evidence.

Karen Moss analyses the EAT's decision in London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Keable EA-2019-000733-DA / EA-2020-000129-DA, a case in which the EAT issues useful procedural advice in relation to conduct dismissals and employee reinstatement.

Stephen Wyeth reviews the Supreme Court's decision in Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others [2021] UKSC 47, a case which demonstrates that any employer who has a workforce covered by collective bargaining needs to tread extremely carefully when looking to abandon negotiations with the relevant union and approach individuals with offers directly.

Naomi Webber analyses R (the Motherhood Plan & Anor) v Her Majesty's Treasury [2021] EWCA Civ 1703, 'in which the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by women who were disadvantaged by the Self Income Support Scheme. It did demonstrate, however, that care must be taken not to discriminate when creating schemes that rely on factors which may be affected by periods of maternity (and other) leave.

Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants Limited (T/a Bear Grylls Survival Race) & Others [2021] EWHC 2396 (QB)

Makhsudul Islam has analysed the case of Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants Limited (T/a Bear Grylls Survival Race) & Others [2021] EWHC 2396 (QB). The case concerned liability in respect of injuries arising from participation in the ‘‘Bear Grylls Survival Race’’.

3PB’s Jakob Reckhenrich has analysed the case of Readie Construction Limited v Geo Quarries Limited [2021] EWHC 3030 (QB) and identifies that the judgment of this case will now make it easier for a party to bring itself within section 49(2) of the Act, showing that the time for payment is other than the day of delivery may well be sufficient to show that “the price is payable on a day certain irrespective of delivery”. Secondly, the courts may be more willing than they once were, to construe a no set-off clause as extending to abatement (particularly where the word “reduction” is used).