Articles

3PB crime and regulatory barrister Rebecca Mcknight has written on the new guidelines for strangulation or suffocation/ racially or religiously aggravated strangulation or suffocation.

The new sentencing guidelines will come into force on 1st January 2025.The data in this area is relatively limited given the offences only came into force on 7 June 2022 but practitioners will know that it is becoming increasingly common to see a charge of strangulation or suffocation. There was a clear need for a guideline for these offences.

Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of L v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2024] UKFTT 001044 (TC), in which the FTT considers the question of taxation of a settlement of financial losses from discrimination, and in particular when it is said that the losses flow from being prevented from taking on work.

Emma Greening reviews the case of Shakil v Samons Limited [2024] EAT 192, in which HHJ Tayler provides a useful recitation of how to approach quantum in an injury to feelings award.

Ben Amunwa analyses the case of Connor v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2024] EAT 175, in which HHJ Beard confirms that a claimant relying on a recurrent condition as a disability under s.6 and Sch.1 of the Equality Act 2010 must prove that the condition had a substantial adverse effect in both past and current circumstances.

In this High Court judgment concerning two cross applications for strike-out and adding a party, the primary dispute related to an unpaid debt for investment consultancy services and the assignment of the sums due. The court decided that the prohibition of assignment clauses were valid and enforceable but that the claimant’s application to join the original assigning party should proceed thereby allowing the claim to continue.

Gareth Graham analyses the case of Xie v E’quipe Japan Ltd [2024] EAT 176, in which the EAT provides a concise summary of the approach to be taken by the ET when faced with an application for strike out in discrimination claims where there is a core of disputed facts.

3PB's commercial and property barrister Alex Whatley has written an analysis of Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 1725 (Ch), in which The High Court  considered the circumstances in which an agent could bind its principal in making representations and variations in commercial contract agreements.

Karen Moss reviews the case of MacLennan v The British Psychological Society [2024] EAT 166, in which HHJ Tayler found that a charity trustee could potentially be entitled to whistleblowing protection as a “worker”.

The case also confirms that a protected disclosure made before employment has begun can be relied upon by someone who later becomes a worker.

Ben Amunwa represented the respondent in Muyulu v London Borough of Harrow: 3301910/2023, in which the Employment Tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim brought by an 'as and when' or 'sessional' social worker.

The judgment illustrates some of the factors Tribunals are likely to consider relevant when determining employment status of sessional social workers hired by local authorities.

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.