Articles

Sarah Clarke analyses Chowdhury v Marsh Farm Futures, following her successful appearance in the EAT.

Diplomatic immunity and leapfrog: Naomi Webber analyses Basfar v Wong UKEAT/0223/19/BA

Max Schofield analyses Premier Family Martial Arts LLP (“PFMA”) v HMRC in which the First Tier Tribunal was tasked with assessing kickboxing classes and the education exemption for private tuition.

Is a belief that there are only two sexes and that it is impossible to change sex a belief protected by the Equality Act 2010? - Daniel Brown analyses Forstater v CGD Europe & Others

Employment Status (again): Worker, employee or self-employed? Craig Ludlow analyses Stuart Delivery Limited v Mr Warren Augustine (UKEAT/0219/18/BA)

Limitation: What type of “conduct” can form part of a “course of conduct” for EqA 2010 limitation purposes? Craig Ludlow analyses South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Mrs King (UKEAT/0056/19/00)

Whistleblowing: Interim relief applications where ‘employee’ status in dispute - Craig Ludlow analyses Dr Colin Hancock v Ter-Berg and anor (UKEAT/0138/19/BA)

Equal Pay: material factor defence - Craig Ludlow reviews (1) Co-Operative Group Limited (2) Pennycook (‘R’) v Walker (UKEAT/0087/19/RN)

A cautionary tale for claimants with a “distorted perception” of events - Andrew MacPhail analyses Mr Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust UKEAT/0246/18

Neil Fawcett analyses the decision in Wilson (as administratrix of the estate of the late John Wilson) and others v Beko plc [2019] EWHC 3362 (QB) which considered whether strict liability claims could be brought under section 41(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) in the context of the Directive of the Council of the European Communities, dated 25 July 1985 (No 85/374/EEC), on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products(‘the Products Directive’).

This article was first published by Lexis®PSL on 24/12/2019

Neil Fawcett analyses the case of Venson Automotive Solutions Ltd v Morrison's Facilities Services Ltd and others [2019] EWHC 3089 (Comm) (9 October 2019), in which the High Court considered the interpretation and purpose of ‘no set-off’ clauses and how they impact on parties’ rights and remedies.

This article was first published by Lexis®PSL on 29/11/2019.

Third party harassment: Sarah Bowen reviews Bessong v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0247/18/JOJ