Articles

Secretary of State for Justice v Johnson [2022] EAT 1

Sarah Clarke analyses Secretary of State for Justice v Johnson [2022] EAT 1, in which the EAT makes it clear that when considering whether or not it would be ‘just and equitable’ to extend time limits, it is not only the period of delay prior to the issuing of the claim that is relevant.

Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd [2022] EWA Civ 7,

Alex Leonhardt reviews Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd [2022] EWA Civ 7, in which the Court of Appeal considers both vicarious liability for employees’ practical jokes or “horseplay” and a purported direct duty on employees to prevent the same, with some useful commentary on the relevance of tension or animosity between staff when that contributes to an employees’ wrongdoing.

Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police v Nicholas Eckland [2021] EWCA Civ 1961

Grace Nicholls analyses Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police v Nicholas Eckland [2021] EWCA Civ 1961, a case in which the Court of Appeal confirmed that a Chief Constable was liable for the actions and omissions of a panel it had appointed and which had wrongfully dismissed a police officer.

Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd 1803699/2021

Sarah Clarke reviews Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd 1803699/2021, in which the ET held that the dismissal of a care worker following a refusal to get the Covid-19 vaccine was fair. However, the case highlights that employers should ensure, before disciplining any employee for refusing to get vaccinated, that they have carried out a full investigation as to the reason why they consider that the vaccination is necessary within their particular workplace and the reasons why an employee has refused the vaccine.

The tribunal were careful to make it clear that they were not setting a precedent that dismissal for a refusal to have the vaccine would always be fair, as all the circumstances surrounding the case had to be taken into account, including the public health situation of the day and the respondent's business insurance requirements.

Financial Remedy Court Efficiency Statement

Luke Nelson looks at the guidance laid down for the preparation of FDAs, FDRs and final hearings and the newly-created FRC documents including the allocation questionnaire, case summary and schedule of assets and income based on the figures.

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.