Articles

3PB’s specialist education  barristers Alice de Coverley and Matthew Wyard have co-authored a two-part report, for students and schools separately, about today’s GCSE results day (20 August 2020).

The guidance offers tips for students and their parents about the GCSE grade that students will receive; the appeals process in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; Exam results Helplines available; Subject Access Requests for finding out information to support you in pushing for an appeal; grounds for appeals; Centres’ duties to students/learners.

3PB's specialist personal injury law barrister Grace Nicholls reviews the case of John Coleman v Daniel Townsend PHW 1806767.

3PB's Michelle Marnham reviews the Eighth Edition of the Ogden Tables.

3PB's specialist personal injury and clinical negligence barrister Eloise Turnnidge reviews the case of Aldred v Cham [2019].

In this article, Alice de Coverley and Matthew Wyard answer some of the most significant questions facing both students and schools on A-level results day 2020, providing practical advice on what to do next.

Max Schofield analyses Landlinx Estates Ltd v HMRC, in which an option agreement over land was broken when the seller backed out and paid the would-be buyer £1.4m. HMRC wanted a slice of the action as VAT on the deal.

Specialist employment law barrister, Katherine Anderson reviews the case of Argos Ltd v Kuldo
Appeal No. UKEAT/0225/19/BA (2nd July 2020).

Employment law barrister, Katherine Anderson analyses the case of Robinson v Department for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 859 (7th July 2020).

Employment law barrister, Sarah Clarke analyses the case of Khorochilova v Euro Rep Ltd UKEAT/0266/19/DA.

Employment law barrister, Naomi Webber analyses the case of Varnish v British Cycling.

Dealing with Competing Jurisdiction Clauses: What is your Centre of Gravity?
Marc Brittain and Mariya Peykova consider complex commercial arrangements and the difficulties they can create for parties where their obligations are set out in a multitude of related contracts of a single contract containing inconsistent dispute resolution clauses. Marc and Mariya explore the most common scenarios in which courts are asked to interpret inconsistent dispute resolution clauses, with particular focus on the ‘centre of gravity’ approach, adopted by courts.

No duty to exercise option reasonably or in good faith in engine maintenance agreement

Rebecca Farrell analyses Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v Lufthansa Technik AG, in which the High Court found that there was no duty of good faith or duty to act reasonably in respect of an option to withdraw engines from a maintenance agreement.

This article was first published by Lexis®PSL on 21 July 2020.