Articles

Privilege under investigation: a commercial update by Charles Irvine. When will solicitor's working papers (as opposed to advice) attract privilege? And what is the scope of legal advice privilege ("LAP") and litigation privilege ("LP")?

Charles Irvine (call 2010) analyses the recent case of Director of the Serious Fraud Office v. Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB), its impact on its impact for civil litigation.

The issue of the inadequate charge: Public Law and Regulatory Barrister Shruti Sharma examines if the panel should amend the charges after hearing evidence. 3PB's Shruti Sharma discusses the issue of late applications to amend charges and the approach that will be taken by adjudicating panels following the case of Doree.

3PB Employment barrister Sarah Bowen provides a case law update covering the past month. Sarah's update includes: Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeal and provides clarity on Indirect Discrimination in two cases: Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) and Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 27; EAT refuses to apply and contradicts previous EAT authority (Agarwal v Cardiff University, Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board UKEAT/0210/16/RD (22 March 2017)) in relation to the Tribunal's jurisdiction to construe contracts of employment: Weatherilt v Cathay Pacific Airways Limited UKEAT/0333/16/RN (25 April 2017) and Multiple choice test amounts to indirect discrimination: Government Legal Service v Brookes UKEAT/0302/16/RN

Joe England considers the latest guidance provided by the Court of Appeal on 'unreasonableness' in relation to costs applications in the Small Claims Court, including the extent to which it could apply in Employment Tribunals. The analysis focuses on last month's case of Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269.

Thomas Acworth on Essop & Ors Home Office and Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice. Thomas Acworth summarises an important decision given in Essop & Ors Home Office; Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice regarding indirect discrimination.

'Unreasonableness': costs applications in the Small Claims Court by Joe England. In what circumstance should a Court determine that a Party to proceedings has behaved unreasonably, for the purpose of awarding Costs in small claims court?

Joe England analyses the important decision from The Court of Appeal in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269, which provides guidance on the meaning of 'unreasonableness', in the context of costs applications in the Small Claims Court, and more general guidance on when costs on that track should be awarded.

Colin McDevitt examines what Pimlico Plumbers v Smith tells us about Employment Status. Colin McDevitt provides a useful analysis of the Pimlico Plumbers v Smith case, examining when the factors in a business/client relationship might amount to employment or worker status.

Evidence in Disability Cases: where are we now? By Matthew Curtis.
Matthew Curtis reviews some recent decisions regarding evidential issues in disability discrimination cases, with a particular focus on:
•Stress as a disability
•Principal's liability for acts of their agents
•Knowledge of disability, in particular who has to know for a claim to succeed?
•Indirect discrimination: the standard of evidence required
•Dismissing for long-term absence where there is late evidence from the employee

3PB's Susan Jones relies on April 2017 Court of Appeal decision to defend a £49,000 costs application in its entirety. On 20th April 2017, in what is likely to be one of the first applications of the Court of Appeal decision in Peter Mills Dammerman v Lanyon Bowlder LLP (2017) Susan successfully appeared for a Defendant in a costs dispute following settlement of a small claim in favour of a Defendant's counterclaim for an offer made by the Claimant almost 3 years earlier.

Commercial update: 'Avoided loss' in the Supreme Court - Lowick Rose v. Swynson - an analysis by Joe England. When can a claimant ask the Court to disregard a 'collateral' benefit, when assessing his damages? If he cannot, can he claim for a loss that has been suffered by somebody else?

Joe England analyses the important Supreme Court decision in Lowick Rose LLP (in liquidation) v. Swynson Ltd [2017] UKSC 32, which grappled with these recurring problems in the assessment of damages.

3PB Employment Barrister Katherine Anderson examines the implications of Peninsula v Baker on employer liability for acts of victimisation. Katherine Anderson examines if an employer can escape "scot-free" from liability for an act of victimisation if it is 'astute enough' to instruct an innocent third party – or employee - to carry it out.

Commercial update: Professional negligence - Seb Oram revisits conveyancers' scope of duty. The Supreme Court has recently heard a challenge to the SAAMCO 'scope of duty' principle, in the context of a professional negligence claim against conveyancers. Seb Oram analyses the recent, landmark decision in BPE Solicitors v. Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21 (SC) that considers how the scope of duty principle applies.