Articles

Katherine Anderson considers the case of Miles v Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency [2023] EAT 62 in which the EAT confirmed the scope of the word "at" in the wording "at a place where" of section 44 (1)(c)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Andrew MacPhail reviews the case of Lovingangels Care Home Ltd v Mhindurwa [2023] EAT 65, which highlights the need for employers to explore all options before proceeding to a decision to dismiss by reason of redundancy.

3PB's public law barrister Matthew Wyard has written a practical overview of judicial review, designed to assist commercial practitioners in serving their clients with “practical, cost-effective solutions to the impact of increased regulation”.

Alex Leonhardt considers the case of Mr J Edward v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EAT 33, in which the EAT carefully considered the relevant principles for approaching questions of failure to mitigate losses, and in particular where percentage reductions similar to “loss of chance” cases are appropriate.

Daniel Brown analyses Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v Clark & Others [2023] EWCA (Civ) 386 in which the Court of Appeal overruled E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall and Sterling v United Learning Trust and set out how arguments about non-compliance with Rules 10 to 12 of the ET Rules of Procedure, in relation to early conciliation, should be dealt with in future.

Our legal assessors - David Swinstead, Peter Jennings, Nicholas Leviseur, Timothy Bradbury, Lachlan Wilson and Mark Sullivan - share with you hints and tips from their own experience, focused for the second time on the use of language: the different ways in which people use language, and which words can mean different things to different people.

A review of the past 12 months by Susan Jones.

Sam Shurey analyses the case of The FA v Imran Louza and examines how to apply the "balance of probabilities" in sports disciplinary cases.

Michelle Marnham analyses the case of Jenkinson v Hertfordshire CC [2023] EWHC 872 (KB), a case which presents us with an intriguing change in clinical negligence law, with Baker J challenging the long-standing notion of the ‘specific rule’ in medical negligence cases.

Craig Ludlow analyses the case of HHJ Kalyany Kaul KC v (1) Ministry of Justice (2) The Lord Chancellor (3) The Lord Chief Justice [2023] EAT 41 in which the EAT states that the need for caution when considering a strike-out application does not prohibit realistic assessment where the circumstances of the case permit.

Mark Green reviews the various ways in which vexatious litigants can be prevented from bringing claims, prompted by the Court of Appeal case of Williamson v The Bishop of London and others [2023] EWCA Civ 379, which confirms the strict rules around Civil Proceedings Orders.

Emma Greening reviews Rolec (Electrical and Mechanical Services) Ltd v Mrs J Georgiou [2023] EAT 46, a case which demonstrates that for there to be a fair hearing a tribunal must not demonstrate a closed mind or the appearance of having taken a side.