Articles

Michael Smith reviews the case of Jones v SoS for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568, in which the CoA found that an ET acted perversely in deciding that it was not just and equitable to extend time for a race discrimination claim to be brought outside the primary limitation period and expressed doubts as to whether suspicion would ever be a relevant factor in the assessment of whether it was just and equitable to extend time.

Daniel Brown analyses the case of Eddie Stobbart Limited v Graham [2025] EAT 14, a case in which the EAT explains how to assess compensation for injury to feelings, particularly where the evidence of injury is scant.

Naomi Webber and Alex Leonhardt analyse the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109, an important decision which explains how direct discrimination interrelates with the right to hold and manifest religious and philosophical beliefs in the workplace.

Alex and Naomi draw out key points from the judgment and explain how it can be applied in future cases.

Jo Laxton on the case of Douglas v North Lanarkshire [2024] EAT 194 in which the EAT considered if, in granting an application to amend, it was an error of law for a tribunal to address the issue of limitation at the final hearing, noting the decisions in Amey Services v Alridge and Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

The decision also briefly addresses a more discrete, secondary point, about the application of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v. Hitt.

Kara Cann considers current attitudes to ‘denial models’ of risk assessment.

Emma Griffiths provides a whistle-stop tour of key principles, authorities and Guidance to signpost practitioners when faced with an issue about the appropriate legal framework for accommodating children who are subject to care proceedings.

3PB barrister Imogen Robins and Amphlett Lissimore head of family law Estella Newbold-Brown explore the legal intricacies of "pet arrangements" or custody and offer family practitioners the benefits of their insights and guidance into an often emotionally charged subject.

3PB ‘s specialist commercial, public and information law barrister Mariya Peykova has written an article titled ‘Online dating platforms and the law: can you afford to swipe right for love?’

3PB's Matiss Krumins represented the local authority before the Supreme Court in respect of the father’s appeal in The Father (Appellant) v Worcestershire County Council (Respondent)
[2025] UKSC 1.

Grace Nicholls reviews Abel Estate Agent Limited and ors v Reynolds [2025] EAT 6, a case which provides an important reminder on how parties and the Tribunals must deal with proceedings in light of the Clark decision and how Tribunals may tackle failures to enter ACAS EC going forward.

It is worthwhile bearing in mind the potential for this appeal to be taken to the Court of Appeal to resolve the tension between Abel and Pryce.

Katherine Anderson offers a practical reminder and tips to respondent representatives regarding mitigation evidence.

Jo Laxton considers the EAT's decision in the case of Kaler v Insights ESC Ltd [2024] EAT 195, where is upheld the findings of an employment tribunal regarding discrimination arising from disability, and requests made by the Claimant during the final hearing for a postponement.