Articles

Specialist intellectual property barrister, Nicole Bollard has issued an update on the Trade Marks and International Trade Marks (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021, a must-read for all UK-based intellectual property specialists.

Gareth Graham reviews Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1694, in which the Court of Appeal provides a useful reminder that any assessment as to whether a person with an episodic condition is disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act must be carried out by way of careful analysis of all the evidence.

Karen Moss analyses the EAT's decision in London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Keable EA-2019-000733-DA / EA-2020-000129-DA, a case in which the EAT issues useful procedural advice in relation to conduct dismissals and employee reinstatement.

Stephen Wyeth reviews the Supreme Court's decision in Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others [2021] UKSC 47, a case which demonstrates that any employer who has a workforce covered by collective bargaining needs to tread extremely carefully when looking to abandon negotiations with the relevant union and approach individuals with offers directly.

Naomi Webber analyses R (the Motherhood Plan & Anor) v Her Majesty's Treasury [2021] EWCA Civ 1703, 'in which the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by women who were disadvantaged by the Self Income Support Scheme. It did demonstrate, however, that care must be taken not to discriminate when creating schemes that rely on factors which may be affected by periods of maternity (and other) leave.

Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants Limited (T/a Bear Grylls Survival Race) & Others [2021] EWHC 2396 (QB)

Makhsudul Islam has analysed the case of Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants Limited (T/a Bear Grylls Survival Race) & Others [2021] EWHC 2396 (QB). The case concerned liability in respect of injuries arising from participation in the ‘‘Bear Grylls Survival Race’’.

3PB’s Jakob Reckhenrich has analysed the case of Readie Construction Limited v Geo Quarries Limited [2021] EWHC 3030 (QB) and identifies that the judgment of this case will now make it easier for a party to bring itself within section 49(2) of the Act, showing that the time for payment is other than the day of delivery may well be sufficient to show that “the price is payable on a day certain irrespective of delivery”. Secondly, the courts may be more willing than they once were, to construe a no set-off clause as extending to abatement (particularly where the word “reduction” is used).

Daniel Brown reviews P2CG Limited v Davis (Appeal No. EA-2019-000762-AT), a judgment that provides useful guidance as to the matters to be considered when an allegation is not put to a witness in court.

Grace Nicholls on Rooney v Leicester City Council UKEAT/0064/20/DA and UKEAT/0104/21/DA, a case which reminds us that fact sensitive cases be dealt with with extra care and caution to prevent unnecessary delay and ensure effective, efficient conduct of litigation.

Grace Boorer analyses Agbeze v Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust EA-2020-000413-VP, in which the EAT found that where a worker’s contract requires something more than being ready, willing and able to work in order to receive wages, a term is not implied that the worker is entitled to be paid on suspension in absence of a contractual provision on the point.

Alex Leonhardt reviews A v Burke & Hare (EA-2020-SCO-0000067-DT), a case in which the EAT concludes that applications for anonymity orders need to be supported by robust evidence on harm that will arise to the party, going beyond mere embarrassment or social opprobrium, with evidence of impact on labour market outcomes potentially considered relevant and sufficient.

Naomi Webber reviews R (Cornerstone) v Ofsted [2021] EWCA Civ 1390, a case considering whether a requirement for foster parents to be in heterosexual marriages on religious grounds was discriminatory.