Articles

...but an employee may have a good claim in the ordinary courts. Katherine Anderson reviews Abellio East Midlands Ltd v Mr K Thomas [2022] EAT 20, a case in which an employee started a new role for their employer before details of the new salary had been agreed.

Grace Nicholls analyses Arvunescu v Quick Release (Automotive) Limited [2022] EAT 26, a useful reminder for respondents and those advising them to ensure wordings on COT3 are carefully drafted. The EAT's decision is based on facts which are not unique and might be a useful authority to have into one’s arsenal in defending claims at any early stage where there has previously been a COT3 drawn up and executed.

Andrew MacPhail analyses Mr Parr v MSR Partners LLP [2022] EWCA Civ 24, a case in which the Court of Appeal provides useful guidance for any practitioner seeking to advise on the issue of limitation within the context of a rule/policy -based decision.

Karen Moss analyses the Court of Appeal's judgment in Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd 2022 EWCA Civ 70 and explores its practical ramifications for employment lawyers.

This note considers the basis on which a judge in civil litigation might be recused (withdrawn) from a case and
some aspects of the procedure.

 Michael George and Aimee Fox have penned a review on variation applications for the latest issue of Family Law, contrasting the treatment of the applications for variations in income awards with those for non-income/capital provision.

The feature reviews two key cases of BT v CU and T v T, offers a postscript on PAG Report 2019 and suggests several lessons learnt from these important cases for divorce and financial settlement, notably:

• The test for varying the quantum or rights vested under a non-income/capital award is either very high or in the alternative they are not amenable to variation as to quantum and these two strands of thinking persist for the moment
• Practitioners should be mindful that an order for a series of lump sums may be deemed to be a camouflaged order for a series of lump sums and care needs to be made when advising and drafting
• The costs rules as drafted do seem logical in the context of applications for variation of non-income/capital awards
• Practitioners should be wary of inadvertently giving impermissible regulated financial advice if there is an option for an internal transfer.

This article was first published by LexisNexis® on 10 February 2022.

Craig Ludlow analyses the present ability of and limitations on Trade Unions to call industrial action.

Khan and Uzayr v BP plc EA-2021-000261-JOJ

Grace Nicholls reviews Khan and Uzayr v BP plc EA-2021-000261-JOJ, in which the EAT reminds us that the relevant considerations need to be taken into account when granting postponements, ensuring that justice is not denied.

Secretary of State for Justice v Johnson [2022] EAT 1

Sarah Clarke analyses Secretary of State for Justice v Johnson [2022] EAT 1, in which the EAT makes it clear that when considering whether or not it would be ‘just and equitable’ to extend time limits, it is not only the period of delay prior to the issuing of the claim that is relevant.

Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd [2022] EWA Civ 7,

Alex Leonhardt reviews Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd [2022] EWA Civ 7, in which the Court of Appeal considers both vicarious liability for employees’ practical jokes or “horseplay” and a purported direct duty on employees to prevent the same, with some useful commentary on the relevance of tension or animosity between staff when that contributes to an employees’ wrongdoing.

Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police v Nicholas Eckland [2021] EWCA Civ 1961

Grace Nicholls analyses Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police v Nicholas Eckland [2021] EWCA Civ 1961, a case in which the Court of Appeal confirmed that a Chief Constable was liable for the actions and omissions of a panel it had appointed and which had wrongfully dismissed a police officer.

Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd 1803699/2021

Sarah Clarke reviews Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd 1803699/2021, in which the ET held that the dismissal of a care worker following a refusal to get the Covid-19 vaccine was fair. However, the case highlights that employers should ensure, before disciplining any employee for refusing to get vaccinated, that they have carried out a full investigation as to the reason why they consider that the vaccination is necessary within their particular workplace and the reasons why an employee has refused the vaccine.

The tribunal were careful to make it clear that they were not setting a precedent that dismissal for a refusal to have the vaccine would always be fair, as all the circumstances surrounding the case had to be taken into account, including the public health situation of the day and the respondent's business insurance requirements.