Articles

Grace Holden considers Owen v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2023] EAT 106, a case in which the EAT ultimately confirms previous decisions of the EAT that the lack of an explanation as to why a claim is brought late is not a pre-requisite to extension of time being granted, but is of particular relevance.

The judgment provides useful learning points and reminders for practitioners dealing with just and equitable time extension arguments.

Katherine Anderson analyses AECOM Limited v Mallon [2023] EAT 104, a case in which the EAT provides a useful review of the authorities on what reasonable enquiries an employer should make of a disabled job applicant.

Alexander Whatley analyses the case of Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc v Goodrich Corporation [2023] EWHC 1637 (Comm), a case in which the High Court had to consider if the original, contractual agreement between the two parties or the incorrect invoice issued by the supplier was to take primacy in this commercial dispute.

Emma Greening considers Mrs R Kealy v Westfield Community Development Association [2023] EAT 96. In this case concerning protected disclosures a defective List of Issues led to a serious misapplication of the law. The EAT’s judgment is an illustrated warning that the List of Issues can play a pivotal role in the ETs decision-making and that we should take great care not to shortcut or summarise our way through drafting these documents.

Alex Leonhardt reflects on the case of Jackson v The University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust [2023] EAT 102, in which the EAT considers the application of Hogg v Dover dismissals to an employee in a contractual redundancy situation. The EAT gives guidance on how such claims are to be determined by Employment Tribunals.

Sarah Clarke on the case of Pilkington v Jones [2023] EAT 90, which serves as a warning to employers to very carefully consider the dismissal of an employee in cases of potential malingering as they could unwittingly find themselves facing a successful section 15 claim.

Jo Laxton reviews Charalambous v National Bank of Greece [2023] EAT 75, a case in which the EAT had to decide if the process followed by the Respondent amounted to unfair dismissal.

Stephen Wyeth analyses United Taxis Ltd v (1) Mr R Comolly (2) Mr R Tidman - and - Mr R Tidman v (1) United Taxis Ltd v (2) Mr R Comolly [2023] EAT 93, a case in which the EAT considers whether a person can be an employee of one employer and a worker of another in respect of the same work, and confirms the need for careful analysis of the facts when determining employment status.

Stephen Wyeth acted for the successful respondent United Taxis.

Technology has dramatically changed the ways in which we relate to each other and how we live our lives. In this article written for Today’s Family Lawyer, Elizabeth Adams examines how new technology could change how family law practitioners deal with case issues and evidence through 3 practical examples.

3PB's Head of Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Michelle Marham, along with future 3PB pupil Jeremy Warner, has written about the recent case of Bilal and Malik v St George's University Hospital NHS Trust. Michelle and Jeremy explore the insight it provides into a post-Montgomery landscape and the clarification it offers on informed consent.

3PB's specialist intellectual property barrister Mark Wilden has written for The Barrister on fighting against unjustified intellectual property takedown complaints in online platforms such as Amazon, eBay and YouTube.

Luke Nelson writes a brief guide to "Intervener actions in financial remedies proceedings: interests in land" for Family Law