Articles

Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of Mrs Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School (The Archbishop’s Council of the Church of England intervening) EA-2020-000896-JOJ in which the EAT considers a case involving dismissal on the basis of the manner a protected belief was manifested by an employee in social media posts, and guidance on the question of proportionality in such cases.

Katherine Anderson considers the case of Mrs N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust: [2022] EAT 204 in which the ET failed to adjudicate upon a claim though its particulars set out sufficient information for it to be considered.

Simon Tibbitts reflects on Phipps v Priory Education Services Ltd and the CoA’s guidance for approaching Rule 70 applications.

Joseph England analyses Greasley-Adams v Royal Mail Group Limited [2023] EAT 86 and the EAT’s analysis of whether the effect of conduct can amount to harassment when the Claimant is unaware of the conduct at the time.

Daniel Brown reviews the case of Alcedo Orange Ltd v Mrs G Ferridge-Gunn [2023] EAT 78 in which the EAT allowed an appeal against a finding that an employee’s dismissal was because of her pregnancy (contrary s.18 Equality Act 2010) on the ground that the ET had not considered Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd [2015] ICR 1010.

Katherine Anderson analyses Royal Parks Ltd v Boohene, Antwi and Others [2023] EAT 63, a case which asked whether workers employed by third-party contractors could rely on the principal's own employees as comparators in a claim of indirect race discrimination relating to rates of pay, under section 41 EqA.

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.