Articles

Mark Green analyses the case of Dr Kate Barry v Upper Thames Medical Group and Others: [2025] EAT 146, in which HHJ Tayler provides guidance and a summary of the law of affirmation. In particular HHJ Tayler explains that if an employer is in repudiatory breach of contract, then multiple factors - not just delay - may be relevant to the question of affirmation.

Michael Smith analyses the case of Mr A and Ms B v C Ltd and Others [2025] EAT 165, a case that illustrates the complexity of assessing psychiatric injury in discrimination claims and the importance of applying correct legal tests.

Simon Tibbitts reflects on the case of Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2025] EAT 160, a case which highlights the risks posed by broad or generalised assessments of credibility.

Robin Pickard considers Abel Estate Agent Ltd & Ors v Elizabeth Reynolds [2025] EWCA Civ 1357, a case which provides clarity on the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been the subject of early conciliation.

Alex Leonhardt reflects upon Sogbodjor v WKCIC t/a Capital City College Group 2219358/2024, a recent case in the Central London Employment Tribunal, which raised questions of the limits of employee’s powers, and the important distinctions between affirmation and acquiescence.

Alex represented the successful claimant in the proceedings.

In Huntley v Siemens Healthcare Limited [2025] EAT 152, the EAT reminds both parties that they must keep in mind the prospects of their claims and defences at all stages of litigation. Grace Nicholls' analysis of the case also highlights that targeted costs applications may result in greater success.

Following his talk on Remedies in Complex Cases at 3PB’s well-attended Employment Law Conference last month Stephen Wyeth reviews the ‘hot off the press’ EAT decision of Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151, the latest appellate decision dealing with how tribunals should evaluate future loss in unfair dismissal cases.

This article analyses how the UK’s export-control, patent secrecy and investment-screening regimes apply to AI models and datasets that generate dual-use or defence-relevant outputs. It argues that legality turns on capability and potential end-use: an AI system may require a licence because of its technical performance or because the exporter knows or suspects its outputs could support WMD programmes.

Having dealt with many fact-finding hearings on behalf of Local Authorities, children through their guardians and parents over the past ten years, Nigel Hawkins shares his checklist of dos and don'ts when conducting Private Law fact-finding hearings.

In the context of rapid technological changes, three years on from M (A Child – Private Law Children Proceedings - Case Management - Intimate Images) [2022] EWHC 986 (Fam), Ayesha Bell-Paris revisits Knowles J's much needed guidance on how the use of intimate images should be managed in private law proceedings.

Amy Beddis and Birketts' Lucia Mills focus on the issues of third-party intervention within financial remedy proceedings - with a practical focus on loans.

Lucia and Amy consider the difficulties that can arise when financial support from parents or grandparents has been given to couples just starting out, or for example where families have gifted or loaned monies to complete renovations or helped out with mortgage repayments.

Rachel Bale provides a recent round up of TOLATA / Schedule 1 cases covering:

• Nilsson and Anor v Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch)
• Savage v Savage [2024] EWCA Civ 49
• TK v LK [2024] EWFC 71
• Dervis v Deniz [2025] EWHC 902 (Ch)
• W v X [2025] EWHC 1696 (Fam)
• Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision: s 423 Insolvency Act 1986) [2025] EWHC 1460 (Fam)