Articles

Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v USDAW [2024] UKSC 28, in which the Supreme Court was asked to consider if Tesco was entitled to terminate certain employment contracts which included an entitlement to "Retained Pay", described as a "permanent" benefit, to then re-hire the same employees on contracts without Retained Pay.

Colin McDevitt analyses the case of Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Limited [2024] EAT 137, in which the EAT allowed a claimant to add - some months after her initial claim for unfair dismissal - a claim of vicarious liability for detriment in the form of dismissal by the co-worker who dismissed her.

Robin Pickard considers the case of South Gloucestershire Council v Ms Hundal [2024] EAT 140, which provides a useful reminder of the distinction between sections 13 and 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to dismissals due to absences.

The EAT also clarifies that a failure to make reasonable adjustments (FMRAs) may inform the ET’s analysis of justification under s. 15(1)(b), notwithstanding that a claimant has not brought a separate claim for FMRAs.

Mark Green reviews the case of AB v University of East London and others [2024] EAT 157, in which the EAT provides a 7-stage suggested approach to extending time for the submission of appeals and a useful summary of the case law to-date.

Daniel Brown considers the case of Ridley & Others v HB Kirtley t/a Queen’s Court Business Centre & Others [2024] EWCA Civ 884, in which the Court of Appeal examined if notices of appeal received on time by the EAT - but from which some of the required supporting documents were missing - should have been granted an appeal.

Mathew Gullick KC analyses the case of HMRC v Lees of Scotland Ltd [2024] EAT 120, a reminder that even the best-intentioned employers can be found in breach of the National Minimum Wage legislation when they make deductions from their workers’ pay.

Rosa Thomas analyses the case of Bailey v (1) Stonewall Equality Ltd (2) Garden Court Chambers & Ors [2024] EAT 119, the first reported judgment that directly deals with what it means to cause or induce discrimination under s.111 Equality Act 2010.

This judgment provides helpful guidance, particularly on the mental element required under s.111 and what is required to establish causation under s.111(2).

Naomi Webber reviews the case of Masiero & others v Barchester Healthcare PLC [2024] EAT 112, which highlights that reasonable business requirement to change terms of employment and reasonable reasons to refuse them are not mutually exclusive.

Naomi also outlines the correct approach to be taken where human rights are engaged and part of the relevant factors to be considered in the context of dismissals.

Rebecca Farrell has written an article for LexisNexis regarding a landlord’s winding-up petition for £167,593.41 against a company incorporated to run a school which was dismissed. The court found there was a strongly arguable case that the bulk of the petition debt did not represent rent arrears payable, but rather a purchase price payable for shares in the company. The court also accepted that there was a cross-clam with a real prospect of success in a sum of at least £546,000 in general damages and potentially exemplary damages as well. The company had raised a strongly arguable case that the purported forfeiture of the lease by physical re-entry between the first and second hearing of the petition (causing the abrupt closure of the school) was unlawful, amongst other arguments in the cross claim.

This article was first published by LexisNexis on 23 July 2024.

Alex Leonhardt reflects on the High Court's refusal to grant a Group Litigation Order to UCL students' claim for disrupted learning during the Covid pandemic and possible implications for other higher education providers.

Alice de Coverley and Sunyana Sharma examine the decision of the Care Standards Tribunal in Mrs EI v Suffolk Childcare Agency [2024] UKFTT 00429 (HESC) in the first known case regarding the appeal of a suspension decision by a childminder agency, other than Ofsted.

Alice de Coverley, instructed by DAC Beachcroft, represented the Respondent, and Sunyana Sharma, also from 3PB, represented the Appellant, instructed by Stephensons.

In the wake of The W v Hertfordshire CC [2023] EWHC 3138 (Admin) litigation, Jim Hirschmann considers the role that strategic policy based Judicial Reviews can have in helping guarantee good governance in accordance with the rule of law.