Commercial update: Claim notification clauses in SPAs
When notifying a claim under a claim notification clause in a Share Purchase Agreement, what level of detail does the purchaser need to give? Christopher Edwards analyses the Court of Appeal’s most recent consideration of the issue (Teoco UK Ltd v Aircom Jersey 4 Ltd  EWCA Civ 23).
Race discrimination - 'Coconut' - Joseph England considers recent analysis of comparators and striking out
In Walters v Avanta Enterprise Limited  UKEAT 0127_17_2112 (December 2017), Slade J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a case in which the Claimant argued that being labelled a ‘coconut’ (i.e. being black on the outside, white on the inside) demonstrated a racially discriminatory motivation but her claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The case examines how to correctly construct a comparator and also repeats the trite warning against striking out cases too readily at preliminary hearings. Joseph England appeared pro bono for the Appellant at the EAT for the r.3(10) stage, successfully obtaining permission to appeal and drafting the grounds of appeal that succeeded before Slade J.
3PB Employment barristers Sarah Clarke and Simon Tibbitts analyse the latest employment law cases, covering:
1. Guidance of whose motivation will be taken into account in determining the “Employer’s” reason for dismissal: Royal Mail Limited v Kamaljeet Jhuti  EWCA Civ 1632
2. EAT find that relying on previous instances of misconduct, for which no sanction had been applied, does not render a dismissal unfair: NHS 24 v Pillar UKEATS/0005/16/JW
3. Subjecting men and women to the same detriment can be ‘less favourable treatment’: HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah school  EWCA Civ 1426
4. The Advocate General has ruled that employees may qualify for protection from pregnancy discrimination before informing employer about their pregnancy: Guisado v Bankia SA (Case C-102/16)
Scope of Duty and Causation of Loss:
What can we learn from the Supreme Court about scope of duty & causation of loss?
BPE Solicitors-v-Hughes-Holland  UKSC 21 & Globalia Business Travel SAU-v-Fulton Shipping  UKSC 43
To read Gavin Hamilton's analysis, please click below.
Just when you thought there was no need to attend another seminar regarding dishonesty in regulatory proceedings and then comes along Ivey (Appellant) v Genting Casino (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords (Respondent)  UKSC 67. Please click below to read 3PB barrister Jennifer Agyekum's analysis.
3PB Employment barrister Oliver Isaacs analyses the latest employment law cases, covering:
1. Early Conciliation – De Mota v ADR Network UKEAT/0305/16/DA
2. Practice and Procedure - Jhuti v Royal Mail UKEAT/0061/17/RN
3. Burden of Proof - Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
4. Causation and Apportionment – BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak (2017) EWCA Civ 1188
5. Permanent Health Insurance - ICTS (UK) Ltd v Visram (2017) All ER D 229
6. Whistleblowing - International Petroleum Ltd v Osipov & Others (2017) UKEAT/0058/17/DA
Please click below to read Oliver's case law update.
In the balance: An employer’s right to monitor communications versus employees Convention Rights in light ofBurbalescu v Romania  ECHR 754 (5 September 2017)
3PB Employment barrister Sarah Bowen considers whether employers can lawfully monitor employees communications following the ECHR’s most recent decision in Burbalescu v Romania  ECHR 754 (5 September 2017)
In her latest article, 3PB Employment barrister Sarah Bowen examines the ECHR’s final decision in Burbalescu v Romania and its impact on private and public employers who chose to monitor staff communications.
Sarah provides a useful summary of the principles relevant to this complex area of law and its impact on convention rights.