Articles

3PB's commercial and property barrister Alex Whatley has written an analysis of Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 1725 (Ch), in which The High Court  considered the circumstances in which an agent could bind its principal in making representations and variations in commercial contract agreements.

Karen Moss reviews the case of MacLennan v The British Psychological Society [2024] EAT 166, in which HHJ Tayler found that a charity trustee could potentially be entitled to whistleblowing protection as a “worker”.

The case also confirms that a protected disclosure made before employment has begun can be relied upon by someone who later becomes a worker.

Ben Amunwa represented the respondent in Muyulu v London Borough of Harrow: 3301910/2023, in which the Employment Tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim brought by an 'as and when' or 'sessional' social worker.

The judgment illustrates some of the factors Tribunals are likely to consider relevant when determining employment status of sessional social workers hired by local authorities.

Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v USDAW [2024] UKSC 28, in which the Supreme Court was asked to consider if Tesco was entitled to terminate certain employment contracts which included an entitlement to "Retained Pay", described as a "permanent" benefit, to then re-hire the same employees on contracts without Retained Pay.

Colin McDevitt analyses the case of Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Limited [2024] EAT 137, in which the EAT allowed a claimant to add - some months after her initial claim for unfair dismissal - a claim of vicarious liability for detriment in the form of dismissal by the co-worker who dismissed her.

Robin Pickard considers the case of South Gloucestershire Council v Ms Hundal [2024] EAT 140, which provides a useful reminder of the distinction between sections 13 and 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to dismissals due to absences.

The EAT also clarifies that a failure to make reasonable adjustments (FMRAs) may inform the ET’s analysis of justification under s. 15(1)(b), notwithstanding that a claimant has not brought a separate claim for FMRAs.

Mark Green reviews the case of AB v University of East London and others [2024] EAT 157, in which the EAT provides a 7-stage suggested approach to extending time for the submission of appeals and a useful summary of the case law to-date.

Daniel Brown considers the case of Ridley & Others v HB Kirtley t/a Queen’s Court Business Centre & Others [2024] EWCA Civ 884, in which the Court of Appeal examined if notices of appeal received on time by the EAT - but from which some of the required supporting documents were missing - should have been granted an appeal.

3PB insolvency, commercial and property litigation barrister Rebecca Farrell has written an article for Lexis Nexis about Brown v Ulrick (as the liquidator of S.A.L. Holdings Ltd) S.A.L. Holdings Ltd (in members’ voluntary liquidation)) [2024] EWHC 2041 (Ch).

Rebecca assisted the landlord in setting aside the liquidator’s decision to reject proof of debt raising interesting points including (a) the appropriate measure of damages for a breach of covenant claim and (b) whether a landlord can seek its costs of proving for a debt within the proof of debt in the circumstances.

Mathew Gullick KC analyses the case of HMRC v Lees of Scotland Ltd [2024] EAT 120, a reminder that even the best-intentioned employers can be found in breach of the National Minimum Wage legislation when they make deductions from their workers’ pay.

Rosa Thomas analyses the case of Bailey v (1) Stonewall Equality Ltd (2) Garden Court Chambers & Ors [2024] EAT 119, the first reported judgment that directly deals with what it means to cause or induce discrimination under s.111 Equality Act 2010.

This judgment provides helpful guidance, particularly on the mental element required under s.111 and what is required to establish causation under s.111(2).

Naomi Webber reviews the case of Masiero & others v Barchester Healthcare PLC [2024] EAT 112, which highlights that reasonable business requirement to change terms of employment and reasonable reasons to refuse them are not mutually exclusive.

Naomi also outlines the correct approach to be taken where human rights are engaged and part of the relevant factors to be considered in the context of dismissals.