Articles

Following the Supreme Court's April judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has now (5 September 2025) shared its updated Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations with the Minister for Women and Equalities for approval. Katherine Anderson considers the legal and practical implications of the For Women Scotland Ltd judgment for schools.

John Friel and Jim Hirschmann revisit Phelps v The London Borough of Hillingdon [2001] 2 A.C. 619; [2000] E.L.R and examine in particular how duty of care and vicarious liability has evolved as far as education professionals and local authorities are concerned.

Robin Pickard reviews Aslam v Transport UK London Bus Ltd (formerly known as Abellio London Ltd) [2025] EAT 113, in which the EAT considers whether a claimant had pleaded a victimisation claim, and analyses the impact of the case on applications for reconsideration and appeals where the Tribunal addresses (or does not address) a claim that is not explicitly pleaded.

Stephen Wyeth analyses CX v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EAT 114 to identify what practitioners might glean from this latest decision on amendment applications and how best to address them.

Sarah Clarke on the case of Mesuria v Eurofins Forensics Services Ltd [2025] EAT 103, and the importance for practitioners tending to preliminary hearings on time limits to correctly identify if they will request strike out under Rule 38, or a preliminary determination under Rule 52, as that will fundamentally alter both how the hearing is prepared for and how it is conducted.

Sarah Bowen analyses the case of Leicester City Council v Bindu Parmar [2025] EWCA Civ 952, a race discrimination case in which the Court of Appeal makes observations on actual, hypothetical, and 'evidential' comparators and evaluates if the ET had misidentified the comparators in its finding for the claimant.

In Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, the Supreme Court has offered timely and much-needed clarification on the operation of the sharing principle in financial remedy cases, particularly in relation to the matrimonialisation of non-matrimonial property. For practitioners, this is now essential reading.

Alice de Coverley and Jim Hirschmann consider how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already being used in education and by Local Authorities, as well as its possible benefits and risks.

Jim and Alice examine what the use of AI might mean in practical and legal terms, for lawyers, parents, local authority and education professionals involved in education and EHC plans.

Winding back the clock and withdrawing a pre-action admission is difficult. There is inevitably a tension between the finality of litigation and the interests of fairness. When a pre-action admission is made, the trajectory of a claim is set in motion. As the White Book commentary provides scant guidance on CPR 14.5, in this article I examine what happens when a defendant seeks to withdraw that admission, with particular focus on Somoye v North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 191 (KB) and the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Wood v Days Healthcare UK Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 2097.

The EAT considers 9 different ET cases and settles the debate. In Raison v DF Capital Bank Limited & Others [EA 2024 000292] Joseph England was successful before the EAT in having the appeal dismissed. The EAT agreed with Joseph’s argument that time spent in ACAS EC prior to limitation starting is not added on to the end of the limitation period.

Family law barrister and arbitrator Nicola Frost explores the benefits of arbitration as an alternative to court proceedings for  the resolution of family law issues.

Rachel Bale provides a recent round up of TOLATA / Schedule 1 cases covering:

• Nilsson and Anor v Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch)
• Savage v Savage [2024] EWCA Civ 49
• TK v LK [2024] EWFC 71