Articles

Matthew Wyard considers the meaning of "reasonable endeavours" in public and private law following the modification of the LA's duty to secure special educational provision specified in an EHC Plan under section 42 to a reasonable endeavours duty, and the likely approach of the Administrative Court to applications to enforce provision in Section F via judicial review.

Matthew Wyard and Alice de Coverley have produced a guide to remote hearings in SENDIST including practical top tips for both practitioners and witnesses. They cover topics from using technology to adapting your approach to this new style of hearing.

Faizul Azman summarises R (Gassa and another) v Richmond Independent Appeals Service and another: a new authority on school admissions which contains some interesting obiter observations on the effect of remittal to a new panel following a successful judicial review.

Naomi Webber looks at the recent Upper Tribunal case of F v Responsible Body of School W.  This is required reading for anyone who does disability discrimination work in the First Tier Tribunal, whose approach to registering claims for discrimination came under scrutiny in Re F for the first time and is likely to work somewhat differently going forward.

3PB specialist Civil barrister Richard Wheeler has produced an article on how to get the Court to hear your case during the Coronavirus pandemic.

The article “Getting the Court to Hear Your Case During the Pandemic” provides an insight into county court civil listing during the pandemic which may assist litigants to retain their current court listings. It provides answers to the following questions:

• What does the court’s triage process involve?
• What considerations might the court have in mind during triage?
• Why was my case adjourned when it was suitable for remote hearing?
• What practical issues do judges face during a remote hearing?
• What can litigants do to help ensure a case remains listed and is effective as a remote hearing?

3PB’s David Richards, Head of the national chambers’ Public & Regulatory Law team, and pupil barrister Dr Tagbo Ilozue have reviewed three new regulatory key cases, covering environment regulation, food safety and housing regulations, all handed down since the UK went into lockdown.

3PB's family law barrister Antonida Kocharova provides a case law update.

3PB's specialist family law barrister Michael George reviews economic disruption and financial remedy claims.

3PB Barristers’ regulatory counsel David Richards, Head of the national chambers’ Public & Regulatory Law team and pupil barrister Dr Tagbo Ilozue have published a digest of recent criminal law developments and relevant case law since the UK went into lockdown.

Is the law of vicarious liability still ‘on the move’? Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13

The 126 claimants in this case were all employees of Barclays Bank who, at the start of their employment between the late 1960s and early 1980s, were required to undergo a medical examination. Examinations were carried out by Dr Bates (now deceased), a general practitioner who was not an employee of the Bank but engaged as an independent contractor to provide this service, and did so at his home. The Claimants alleged that they were sexually assaulted by Dr Bates while undergoing this examination and brought a group action against the Bank for compensation. A preliminary issue was whether Barclays could be vicariously liable for his actions.

At first instance, the High Court found that Barclays had been vicariously liable. The Court of Appeal agreed, applying the five-part test in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56, and Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.

Supreme Court Decision (Lady Hale) - the key issue was whether the relationship between Dr Bates and Barclays was ‘akin to employment’. The Supreme Court held unanimously that it was not.

The ECJ gives a preliminary ruling on the issue of worker status in the case of B v Yodel Delivery Network Ltd- case C-692/19

ECJ Referral

The tribunal referred the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
Does Directive [2003/88] [which was transposed into UK national law by the WTR] preclude provisions of national law which require an individual to undertake to do or perform all of the work or services required of him, “personally” in order to fall within the scope of the Directive?

COVID-19 Q&A: The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and potential Equality Act issues arising from it

Thank you to the 180 individuals who attended 3PB Employment & Discrimination Group’s first webinar on 23rd April 2020. We intend to provide another webinar on 2nd June 2020.

This article supplements the webinar that we provided and accordingly reproduces (albeit in more detail) the commentary provided on the day. As anticipated, the government’s guidance has been revisited and supplemented on several occasions since the webinar! Therefore this article has been updated to take account of revisions up to 1st May 2020. In addition, we have included further considerations and detail on matters raised in some of your questions.