Articles

Daniel Brown analyses Meade v (1) Westminster City Council & (2) Social Work England (Case Numbers: 2201792/2022 and 2211483/2022), in which the Employment Tribunal found that Social Work England seriously abused its power as a regulatory body, violating a Social Worker’s Convention rights and unlawfully discriminating against her.

This case is a useful reminder of the Supreme Court's confirmation in Michalak that the ET has jurisdiction to consider claims against professional regulators, unless a complaint about the matter in question may be pursued via a statutory appeal.

3PB's specialist family barrister Stephen Abberley, with contribution from Elizabeth McGrath KC, Laura Scott, Matiss Krumins and Laurie-Elizabeth Ketley, has written a briefing on the recent Court of Appeal case of Re P and E (Care Proceedings: Whether to Hold a Fact-Finding Hearing) [2024] EWCA Civ 403.

Simon Tibbitts reviews British Airways Plc v Mello and ors [2024] EAT 53, in which useful guidance is given on the approach that should be taken when deciding what allowances are part of ‘normal’ pay for holiday pay calculation purposes.

The EAT also examines the current legal position in relation to the concept of a ‘series’ of deductions following the recent decision in Agnew [2023] UKSC 33.

Katherine Anderson examines the cases of Stena Drilling PTE Limited v Smith [2024] EAT 57 and TwistDX Limited and Others v Armes and Others [2024] EAT 45, concerned with international or territorial jurisdiction and considers the need to carefully analyse the facts of the case and raise jurisdiction questions as a preliminary issue in the absence of an 'obvious and plain' answer.

Robin Pickard on the case of Kaur v Sun Mark Ltd and Others [2024] EAT 41, in which the deliberate destruction of evidence to prevent its inspection ahead of a remedies hearing led to the claim being struck out.

Further, the EAT’s adoption of authorities from the civil courts in relation to the suppression of evidence, and its relationship with the ability to hold a fair hearing, is noted.

3PB's specialist public law barrister Ben Amunwa analyses the recent case of DXK v SSHD [2024] EWHC 579 (Admin), a judicial review brought by an asylum seeking expectant mother against the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Ben Amunwa analyses the case of Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer [2024] UKSC 12, in which the UK Supreme Court hands out a victory for the protection of Trade Union freedoms and workers' rights, finding the UK to be in breach of ECHR article 11 as section 146(2) of TULRCA fails to provide protection from detriment for workers participating in lawful strike action.

Suffian Hussain reviews the judicial review claim of TTT, R (On the Application of) v Michaela Community Schools Trust [2024] EWHC 843 (Admin) (16 April 2024), in which the High Court decided that the policy of Michaela School to prohibit prayer rituals for all of its pupils was lawful.

3PB's public law, education and employment barrister Ben Amunwa briefs on the recent Court of Appeal judgment in ASY & Others v Home Office [2024] EWCA Civ 373.

Andrew MacPhail considers the case of Worcestershire Health and Care and NHS Trust v Ms Allen [2024] EAT 40, which serves as a helpful reminder that the issue of causation in Equality Act harassment involves ascertaining the cause of the conduct in question rather than that of the wider context; and which also provides a useful analysis of what is required to satisfy the concept of “conduct extending over a period” for the purposes of limitation.

Dr Tagbo Ilozue reviews the case of Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v (1) General Dental Council (2) Naveed Patel [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin), which offers a useful guide as to the proper approach to sanction in professional disciplinary cases based on convictions for serious offences. It also includes instructive comment on the ambit of the High Court’s power to substitute a decision on sanction.

Stephen Wyeth reviews Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller [2024] EAT 37 which deals with the issue of whether trial periods can be a reasonable adjustment in the context of existing case law and offers some useful discussion about how the burden of proof shifts in such cases.