Articles

3PB personal injury and clinical negligence barrister Sharan Sanghera comments on a recent case regarding healthcare enabled fraud in claims for psychological injury arising from road traffic accidents.

Sarah Bowen looks at the complex and constantly evolving area of discrimination law and how cases this year have provided clarification, enforcement and development of the legal principles underpinning claims under the Equality Act 2020.

Paul Newman considers the recent case of Hertfordshire CC v Mother & Father & Others [2022] EWFC 106 and the duty of experts.

Emma Greening summarises the case of Mr J Hilaire v Luton Borough Council [2022] EAT 166, in which the EAT concluded that an appeal could not succeed based on the fact that the ET were best placed to conclude it was not the effects of disability which prevented the claimant's compliance with a PCP, rather it was a choice he made.

Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of Nexus v RMT & Unite the Union [2022] EWCA Civ 1408, in which the Court of Appeal considered the application of the contractual doctrine of mistake - both common mistake and unilateral mistake - in the context of a collective bargaining agreement, and its potential consideration by Employment Tribunals.

3PB specialist commercial and chancery barrister Aaron Mayers discusses the case of Gorbachev v Guriev [2022] EWCA Civ 1270 and investigates how the case sets a precedence for the meaning of extra-territoriality.

3PB's Rachel Bale considers expectation vs reality in a recent Supreme Court judgment - Guest and another v Guest [2022] UKSC 27. The case discussed the correct approach in calculating the type and amount of equitable relief to be awarded where proprietary estoppel has been made out. This case involved a family dispute over, Tump Farm, a working dairy farm which has been owned by the Guest family since 1938. An interesting aspect of this case is that the court had to consider how to deal with promises of future inheritance where the promisor is still alive. As is often the case with familial issues, the solution is not necessarily clear-cut...

Mark Wilden discusses the case of Pasternak v Prescott [2022] EWHC 2695 (Ch) and explores how the case illustrates the intricacies of copyright protection of historical research.

Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of Hilco Capital Limited v Denise Harrington [2022] EAT 156, in which the EAT considered the evidential burden in respect of claims that an ex-employee suffers disadvantages in the labour market arising from stigma related to whistleblowing or bringing claims against their former employers.

Sarah Clarke reviews Bathgate v Technip UK Ltd et al [2022] EAT 155: EAT, in which the EAT makes clear that future claims cannot be compromised in settlement agreements under s147 EQA.

Sarah further explores what employers and practitioners could do contractually, to ensure that future claims do not arise, in light of this EAT judgment.

Emma Greening summarises the case of University of Dundee v Mr Prasun Chakraborty [2022] EAT 150, in which the EAT ruled that an original un-amended document does not become retrospectively privileged even in circumstances where a comparison to the final version might allow inferences to be drawn about the legal advice given.

Mark Wilden on “Massive overdisclosure” ordered in departure from business & property courts disclosure regime in Genius Sports Technologies Ltd v Soft Construct (Malta).