Articles

Rosa Thomas analyses the case of Bailey v (1) Stonewall Equality Ltd (2) Garden Court Chambers & Ors [2024] EAT 119, the first reported judgment that directly deals with what it means to cause or induce discrimination under s.111 Equality Act 2010.

This judgment provides helpful guidance, particularly on the mental element required under s.111 and what is required to establish causation under s.111(2).

Naomi Webber reviews the case of Masiero & others v Barchester Healthcare PLC [2024] EAT 112, which highlights that reasonable business requirement to change terms of employment and reasonable reasons to refuse them are not mutually exclusive.

Naomi also outlines the correct approach to be taken where human rights are engaged and part of the relevant factors to be considered in the context of dismissals.

Rebecca Farrell has written an article for LexisNexis regarding a landlord’s winding-up petition for £167,593.41 against a company incorporated to run a school which was dismissed. The court found there was a strongly arguable case that the bulk of the petition debt did not represent rent arrears payable, but rather a purchase price payable for shares in the company. The court also accepted that there was a cross-clam with a real prospect of success in a sum of at least £546,000 in general damages and potentially exemplary damages as well. The company had raised a strongly arguable case that the purported forfeiture of the lease by physical re-entry between the first and second hearing of the petition (causing the abrupt closure of the school) was unlawful, amongst other arguments in the cross claim.

This article was first published by LexisNexis on 23 July 2024.

Alex Leonhardt reflects on the High Court's refusal to grant a Group Litigation Order to UCL students' claim for disrupted learning during the Covid pandemic and possible implications for other higher education providers.

Alice de Coverley and Sunyana Sharma examine the decision of the Care Standards Tribunal in Mrs EI v Suffolk Childcare Agency [2024] UKFTT 00429 (HESC) in the first known case regarding the appeal of a suspension decision by a childminder agency, other than Ofsted.

Alice de Coverley, instructed by DAC Beachcroft, represented the Respondent, and Sunyana Sharma, also from 3PB, represented the Appellant, instructed by Stephensons.

In the wake of The W v Hertfordshire CC [2023] EWHC 3138 (Admin) litigation, Jim Hirschmann considers the role that strategic policy based Judicial Reviews can have in helping guarantee good governance in accordance with the rule of law.

John Friel considers how to make the best use of the recent legal developments on recommendations made under the SENDIST’s extended appeals jurisdiction when such recommendations are rejected by a local authority.

Emma Waldron provides a roundup of some of the major policies set to be implemented under the new Labour government, and what the changes could mean for education law practitioners.

Emma Waldron on the case of Hampshire County Council v (1) GC (2) GC (SEND): [2024] UKUT 128 (AAC) and the decision by a local authority to cease to maintain the EHC Plan of a child who had moved abroad.

Alex Leonhardt analyses Christopher Watson v Wallwork Nelson Johnson & Anor [2024] EAT 105, a case concerned with employment status, in which the EAT sets out a thorough statement of the relevant principles in determining the existence of an employment relationship against the background of a potential partnership.

Daniel Brown on the case of Boohene & Others v The Royal Parks Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 583, which highlights what can go wrong in indirect discrimination claims when careful analysis of the issues and the inclusion of evidence to prove the case are missing.

This case also offers a useful analysis of the scope of s.41 Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA 2010’) (liability of principals in relation to contract workers).

3PB expert commercial, costs and property law barrister Cheryl Jones and pupil barrister Jack Felvus have written on the relevance of Part 36 offers in the legal costs arising from probate litigation.