Articles

Ben Amunwa explores in three stages the sudden withdrawal of employment claims and the issues that can arise as result. Ben first considers the procedure in itself; practical difficulties; timing and finally the wider implications for the administration of justice.

Simon Tibbitts reviews the case of Handa v The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Ltd & Ors [2025] EAT 62, which highlights the complexity of establishing agency within employment contexts, and emphasises the importance of authority, control, and the scope of functions in determining agency relationships.

Matthew Curtis summarises the case of Woodhead v WTTV Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 1128 (KB) and its important learning points for those involved in or advising on disciplinaries and other internal procedures that may give rise to significant mental distress.

Second-six pupil barrister Victoria Holland on the case of Re T (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93, which highlights the importance of analysing all the factors in the welfare checklist when considering a care and placement order instead of relying excessively on the ‘risk of harm’ factor.

The judgment also sets out a 7-step approach to this analysis.

David Beatson investigates the Courts' seemingly increasing propensity in private law cases to push through and deal with contested final hearings on the basis of submissions only.

The judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 was given on 16 April 2025, making headlines in the national press and internationally. Katherine Anderson considers the practical implications for employers.

Mark Green reviews the case of Mr A E Madu v Loughborough College [2025] EAT 52, in which HHJ Tayler provides useful guidance on costs applications in discrimination cases and underlines that litigants in person on the other end of a costs application may need special consideration.

Michael Smith on F v J [2025] EAT 34, in which the EAT found that the Employment Tribunal had applied the wrong legal test, set the evidential bar too high, and failed to give due weight to the Claimant’s reasonable concerns regarding future professional harm when assessing their application for anonymity.

What is the approach to be taken when a claimant seeks to amend their claim while still within the primary limitation period for the events which the amendment concerns? Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of Barbosa Dethling v The Metropolitan Police Service [2025] EAT 58, in which HHJ Auerbach considered this question.

Andrew Duncan recently acted in a case concerning a young person who sought to change their forename. In Re C (A child)(Change of Given Name) [2024] EWCA Civ 1582 the child also expressed a wish to change their surname, but this was not actively pursued, and the guardian had not reported on its merits.

Andrew writes about this case for Family Law Week. Click below to read the article.

Gareth Graham analyses the case of Impact Recruitment Services Ltd v Korpysa [2025] EAT 22, which results in the EAT reinforcing the relatively low threshold for what counts as a substantial reason for SOSR dismissals.

An employer’s genuinely held but mistaken belief that an employee has resigned may be sufficient to establish a potentially fair reason for dismissal. However, the dismissal may nonetheless be unfair if the employer did not act reasonably in treating the employment as terminated for that reason.

Strike Out Season
Colin McDevitt summarises the key aspects of four recent decisions on strike out:

W v Highways England and others, 18th February 2025, [2025] EAT 18, Lord Fairley
Kostrova v McDermott International INC and CB&I UK Ltd, 13th March 2025, [2025] EAT 35, Lord Fairley
Kamphues v Venator Materials UK Ltd, 19th March 2025, [2025] EAT 30, HHJ Tayler
Kinch v Compassion in World Farming International, 26th March 2025, [2025] EAT 41, Lord Fairley.