Articles

Katherine Anderson offers a practical reminder and tips to respondent representatives regarding mitigation evidence.

Jo Laxton considers the EAT's decision in the case of Kaler v Insights ESC Ltd [2024] EAT 195, where is upheld the findings of an employment tribunal regarding discrimination arising from disability, and requests made by the Claimant during the final hearing for a postponement.

Emma Greening considers the case of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Christine Oliver [2024] EAT 193 in which it was held an Employment Tribunal was wrong to determine a complaint that had not been part of the Claimant's original claim.

Daniel Brown analyses the case of HSBC Bank PLC v Chevalier-Firescu [2024] EWCA Civ 1550, in which the Court of Appeal reviewed if the ET had provided sufficient basis for refusing to extend time.

3PB crime and regulatory barrister Rebecca Mcknight has written on the new guidelines for strangulation or suffocation/ racially or religiously aggravated strangulation or suffocation.

The new sentencing guidelines will come into force on 1st January 2025.The data in this area is relatively limited given the offences only came into force on 7 June 2022 but practitioners will know that it is becoming increasingly common to see a charge of strangulation or suffocation. There was a clear need for a guideline for these offences.

Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of L v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2024] UKFTT 001044 (TC), in which the FTT considers the question of taxation of a settlement of financial losses from discrimination, and in particular when it is said that the losses flow from being prevented from taking on work.

Emma Greening reviews the case of Shakil v Samons Limited [2024] EAT 192, in which HHJ Tayler provides a useful recitation of how to approach quantum in an injury to feelings award.

Ben Amunwa analyses the case of Connor v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2024] EAT 175, in which HHJ Beard confirms that a claimant relying on a recurrent condition as a disability under s.6 and Sch.1 of the Equality Act 2010 must prove that the condition had a substantial adverse effect in both past and current circumstances.

In this High Court judgment concerning two cross applications for strike-out and adding a party, the primary dispute related to an unpaid debt for investment consultancy services and the assignment of the sums due. The court decided that the prohibition of assignment clauses were valid and enforceable but that the claimant’s application to join the original assigning party should proceed thereby allowing the claim to continue.

Gareth Graham analyses the case of Xie v E’quipe Japan Ltd [2024] EAT 176, in which the EAT provides a concise summary of the approach to be taken by the ET when faced with an application for strike out in discrimination claims where there is a core of disputed facts.

Small scale redundancies – what level of consultation is required?
Andrew MacPhail reviews the case of De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1291, in which the Court of Appeal explores whether, in small scale redundancies, “workforce consultation” is required in addition to individual consultation.

The Court also makes recommendations about the scope and timing of consultation.