Articles

Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of McKenzie v First Greater Western Limited [2026] EWHC 868 (KB), in which the High Court considered the principles governing injunctions to restrain employers proceeding with disciplinary processes.

Stephen Wyeth summarises the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision of Williams J in Khakimov v Amova Asset Management UK Ltd (formerly Nikko Asset Management Europe Ltd) [2026] EAT 47 concerning the proper identification of the “something arising” under section 15 Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”), the role of agreed lists of issues, and the limits of appellate intervention in proportionality and perversity challenges.

Emma McIlveen examines how emotional support animals, once a personal coping mechanism, are finding their way into legal arguments and into the courtroom, carrying legal significance as part of the evolving duty to make reasonable adjustments.

David Parratt KC and Zhen Ye they explore the practical implications of DIFC Courts confirming a defendant who attempted to cancel two court orders, focused on property located in Dubai, an Enforcement Order and a Receivership Order, that had been issued to support decisions made by an English court.

Michael Vora has written an article on The Property Act 2025 marking a significant development in the treatment of digital assets under English law.

This is the first reported case to consider the complex interaction between the overcrowding rules, the licencing regime for houses in multiple occupation and the accommodation of destitute asylum-seeking families in hotels.

Matthew Curtis reviews Morgan v Morgan & ors [2026] EWHC 384 (Ch), which provides a reminder of the limited circumstances in which a judge’s factual findings can be relied upon in subsequent litigation.

In this case, the High Court judge went on to find that the claimants were employees of the Companies, when the ET had determined they were not.

Grace Nicholls considers Bibescu v Clare Jenner Ltd t/a Jenner’s [2026] EAT 30 and its helpful summary of the approach to be taken in determining the various elements of the test under s43B ERA 1996, which Tribunals frequently need to grapple with. Specifically, Tribunals will need to focus on the Claimant’s state of mind when looking at the first limb of the test and if, at the time of making the disclosures, that Claimant genuinely believed the disclosure(s) to be in the public interest.

Colin McDevitt reviews Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EAT 32: a good example of how the Tribunal at first instance correctly dealt with determining whether the Respondent could establish the PCP as a fair and proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Gareth Graham analyses the case of Whitaker v White Rose Academies Trust & Luminate Education Group [2026] EAT 43, which serves as a helpful summary of the extent to which there is a limited duty on ETs to determine issues that were not clearly identified in the pleadings and then set out in a list of issues.

This case highlights the importance of having an accurate and comprehensive list of issues, especially given significant time pressures in the ET system.

Esther Lieu considers how a ‘child arrangements’ order made by a court in another country that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996  (‘the 1996 Convention’)  can be recognised and/or registered for enforcement in the Family Court of England and Wales.

On 5 March 2026, the High Court gave judgment in a case concerning two permanent exclusions. The judgment provides detailed consideration of several areas relating to the procedure and discretionary powers of exclusion panels, writes Ben Amunwa.