Craig Ludlow analyses the latest employment cases, covering:

• Burden of proof in direct discrimination cases - Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 18
• Whistleblowing – failure to comply with legal obligation / public interest test - Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd UKEAT/0105/18/BA
• Equal Pay: Cross-establishment comparators - Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley & Others [2019] EWCA Civ 44
• Practice and Procedure – Case Management – Restricted Reporting Order / Anonymity - Y Ameyaw v PriceWaterhouseCoopers Services Ltd UKEAT/024418/LA
• Non-solicitation and non-competition clauses in employment contracts - Freshasia Foods Ltd v Jing Lu [2018] EWHC 3644 (Ch)
• Whistleblowing – protected disclosures – teachers – unfair dismissal – migrant work visas - K Gibson v (1) Hounslow London Borough Council (2) Crane Park Primary School UKEAT/0033/18/BA
• EAT Procedure: Reasonable Adjustments on Time Limits for Appeal - J v K & Anor & Equality & Human Rights Commission [2019] EWCA Civ 5

View Publication

Cost Consequences of Accepting a Part 36 Offer late in former RTA and ELPL Protocol Claims – Problems with Hislop v Perde [2018] EWCA Civ 1726

In the joined cases of Hislop v Perde and Kaur v Committee (for the time being) of Ramgarhia Board Leicester [2018] EWCA Civ 1726, the Court of Appeal considered the question of the correct approach to costs in cases falling under the fixed costs regime in CPR Part 45 Section IIIA where a Part 36 offer is accepted after the expiry of the relevant period.

Section IIIA is the part of Part 45 which applies to cases no longer proceeding under the RTA and EL/PL Protocol (‘PAP’) such as those proceeding to Fast Track trial. The Court also provided a useful steer on the previously uncanvassed ‘exceptional circumstances’ test under CP45.29J, which provides a general gateway out of the fixed costs regime, and the test for indemnity costs, (see paragraphs 8 to 13 below).

Ikeni Mbako-Allison writes about the Court Of Appeal's approach.

View Publication

In his latest article, Ikeni Mbako-Allison examines Hislop v Perde [2018] EWCA Civ 1726 and the cost consequences of accepting a Part 36 offer late in former RTA and EL/PL Protocol Claims.

View Publication

In torts such as deceit, where liability depends on the claimant acting in reliance on a statement made to him, the test for establishing vicarious liability is not the same as for other wrongs committed in the course of a servant’s employment. Alex Whatley analyses the Court of Appeals recent decision in Winter v. Hockley Mint Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2480.

Alex Whatley is a Commercial Law barrister specialising in business disputes and Agency. Click here to view his profile.

View Publication

Permission to Challenge a Trustee in Bankruptcy’s Remuneration

James Davies analyses the case of Singh v Hicken [2018] EWHC 3277 (Ch); an appeal against the decision of a County Court judge refusing permission to Mr Singh, a discharged bankrupt, to challenge his trustee’s remuneration. Under Insolvency Rule 2016 18.35 the permission of the court is required before a bankrupt can make such a challenge.

James Davies represented Mr. Hicken both at first instance, where permission was refused, and on appeal to the High Court where the appeal was dismissed.

View Publication

3PB barristers Lachlan Wilson and Sarah Bowen analyse the latest employment law cases, covering:
•Harassment – Evans v Xactly Corporation Ltd UKEATPA/0128/18LA
•Whistleblowing: Timis & Sage v Osipov [2018] EWCA Civ 2321
•Direct Discrimination – Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others [2018] UKSC 49
•Good faith/Bad faith - Saad v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust UKEAT/0276/17/JOJ
•Amendments – Pruzhanskaya v International Trade Exhibitors (JV) Ltd (2018) UKEAT/0046/18/LA
•Philosophical Belief – A Gray v Mulberry Co (Design) Ltd (2018) UKEAT/ 0040/17/DA
•Practice and Procedure - X v Y Ltd (2018) UKEAT/0261/17/JOJ
•Vicarious liability – Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2214

View Publication

Forming contracts through commercial negotiations

Seb Oram analyses, for LexisPSL, the practical implications of the Commercial Court’s decision in Rotam Agrochemical Co Ltd v GAT Microencapsulation GmbH [2018] EWHC
2765 (Comm). This case analysis was first published by LexisNexis on 30 October 2018.

View Publication

Commercial update: Data protection breaches – Employers’ liability

Is common law doctrine of vicarious liability of an employer for its employee’s misuse of private information excluded by the DPA? And secondly, can an employer be vicariously liable for the employee’s acts away from the workplace? Nicole Bollard analyses the Court of Appeals recent decision in W M Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2018] EWCA Civ 2339.

Nicole is a Commercial Law barrister specialising in business disputes and intellectual property.

View Publication

3PB barrister Gareth Graham analyses the latest employment law cases, covering:
•Harassment – Evans v Xactly Corporation Ltd UKEATPA/0128/18LA
•Whistleblowing: Timis & Sage v Osipov [2018] EWCA Civ 2321
•Unfair Dismissal: Hawkes v Ausin Group (UK) Ltd UKEAT/0070/18/BA
•Direct Discrimination – Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others

In other news…
•Employment Tribunal statistics
•Consultation Paper on reforming employment law hearing structures

View Publication