Articles

3PB's commercial and property barrister Alexander Whatley analyses Sherman v Reader Offers Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 412, a breach of contract claim brought by a couple whose Arctic cruise was disrupted by the weather.

Following the announcement of a General Election to take place on 4 July 2024, Andrew MacPhail explores whether we can expect a greater number of unfair dismissal claims from the end of 2024 by virtue of Labour’s planned changes to workplace rights.

Naomi Webber reviews Mr Martin Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency [2024] EAT 71, in which the EAT found that a volunteer was a worker, in circumstances where he received remuneration for his activities as a coastal rescue officer.

The case confirms that ‘volunteer’ is not a term of art (or law), and each relationship will have to be considered on its own facts.

In answering what would happen if a defendant, having pleaded guilty, was later discovered to be unfit, Kate Davies considers the judgments in Ismael and Marcantoni.

Robin Pickard considers the case of Z v Y [2024] EAT 63, which addresses the importance of accurately identifying a litigant in person’s pleaded claims and ensuring that lists of issues mirror the pleadings.

The case also provides a useful recap of the principles that govern “conduct extending over a period” under s.123(3)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.

Oliver Hirsch examines when defendants' claims of unlawful use of force by police officers can be substantiated, with due regard to the powers available to police officers in s.117 PACE 1984, and the rights to use reasonable force available to all citizens.

Ben Amunwa writes about the High Court’s decision in Smith v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1137 (Admin), and its finding that key parts of the Police, Crime, Sentencing Courts Act 2022 amendments to Part V of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, were unlawful. The amendments strengthened powers available in response to concerns about anti-social conduct perceived to be associated with ‘unauthorised encampments’. The Court’s judgment finds that the criminal law restrictions on persons who return to unauthorised encampments were a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the ECHR article 14 rights of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers.

The High Court’s decision means that Parliament now needs to amend the legislation so it is compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations.

Sunyana Sharma considers the Court of Appeal's decision in Disclosure and Barring Service (‘DBS’) v. RI [2024] EWCA Civ 95, which confirms the Upper Tribunal's entitlement to decide that an appellant's denial of wrongdoing was credible and constituted a mistake of fact.

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.