Read Hamish Dunlop's lecture notes on Owens v Owens, a groundbreaking divorce case scheduled to go to the Supreme Court. Hamish's analysis explains why this case could lead to the introduction of no-fault divorce in the UK.

View Publication

Journal of Planning and Environment Law publishes a superb review of Webster and Weatherley’s “Restrictions on the Use of Land”.

In a review authored by Dr Ashley Bowes, the Journal of Planning and Environment Law has positively commented on “Restrictions on the Use of Land”, William Webster and Robert Weatherley’s planning law reference book.

Click below to read the review.

Published by Wildy, Simmonds & Hill the book covers the law and practice in a number of fields which impact the use of land and there is considerable focus on remedies for the infringement of rights in, on or over land. The areas covered include: easements, town and village greens, public rights of way, restrictive covenants, assets of community value and elements of planning law.

View Publication

The Tribunal Fees Order is unlawful and discriminatory.

3PB Employment barrister Sarah Bowen reviews the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 that Tribunal fees are unlawful and discriminatory and considers what might happen next!

View Publication

3PB Employment barrister Joseph England examines the decision reached by the Court of Appeal in Day v Health Education England & Ors. [2017] EWCA Civ 329, where the Court of Appeal held that a junior doctor can rely on ‘whistleblowing’ protection against Health Education England despite a separate employment relationship with an NHS Trust, bolstering protection for 54,000 junior doctors and agency workers nationwide.

To read Joseph’s article, please on the link below. This article originally appeared in the ELA Briefing publication July 2017.

Joseph was Counsel for the Claimant in McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Trust [2016] ICR 1156, a case also concerning protection for whistleblowers and on which the Court of Appeal based their judgment in Day. Further details about McTigue can be found here

View Publication

In a recent judgment in the Employment Appeal Tribunal – Hampshire County Council v Wyatt UKEAT/0013/16 (13 October 2016) – Mrs Justice Simler DBE gave important presidential guidance on the questions which frequently arise in discrimination remedy hearings when tribunals consider claims for non-pecuniary damages and/or where there might be competing causes of injury. Karen Moss

View Publication

Simon Tibbitts provides an employment case law update covering:

(1) Discrimination awards – all rise by 10%!: De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 879
(2) Conduct of an employee does not have to be culpable (whether negligent, reckless or dishonest) in order to constitute a potentially fair reason under s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996: JP Morgan v Ktorza (UKEAT/0311/16/JOJ)
(3) Privilege against self-incrimination and when it arises in the ET: Coletta v Bath Hill Court (Bournemouth) Management Company Ltd (UKEAT/0297/16/RN)
(4) Court of Appeal reminds us again that ‘because of’ is not to be equated with a simple ‘but for’ analysis: Greater Manchester Police v Bailey [2017] EWCA Civ 425
(5) Farmah and ors v Birmingham City Council (UKEAT/0286/15/JOJ)
(6) King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd

View Publication

In its latest judgment on contractual interpretation, the Court of Appeal provides further guidance on the interpretation of exclusion and the contra proferentem rule.

Graeme Sampson (call 2010) analyses the recent case of (1) PERSIMMON HOMES LTD (2) TAYLOR WIMPEY UK LTD (3) BDW TRADING LTD v (1) OVE ARUP & PARTNERS LTD (2) OVE ARUP & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL LTD [2017] EWCA Civ 373, which deals with exemption clauses and how they should be construed.

Graeme is a Commercial & Construction Law barrister with particular interest in matters which overlap (e.g. Trade disputes, joint ventures, and related professional negligence claims).

View Publication

3PB Family Barrister Rachael Goodall analyses the Court of Appeal's judgement in the appeal of JS v RS [2017] EWCA Civ 408, concerning the division of matrimonial assets following the dissolution of a marriage.

Rachael's analysis takes account of the jurisprudential relationship between Miller v Miller and McFarlane v McFarlane.

View Publication