Articles

Dr Tagbo Ilozue reviews the case of Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v (1) General Dental Council (2) Naveed Patel [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin), which offers a useful guide as to the proper approach to sanction in professional disciplinary cases based on convictions for serious offences. It also includes instructive comment on the ambit of the High Court’s power to substitute a decision on sanction.

Stephen Wyeth reviews Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller [2024] EAT 37 which deals with the issue of whether trial periods can be a reasonable adjustment in the context of existing case law and offers some useful discussion about how the burden of proof shifts in such cases.

Ben Amunwa analyses the case of Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (t/a Global Artists) & Anor [2024] EAT 30, in which the EAT upheld the Tribunal’s judgment, including its key finding that where a protected belief forms part of the context but not part of the reason for a decision, that will be insufficient to establish religion or belief discrimination.

Sarah Clarke considers the case of Vaultex v Bialas EA-2022- 001258-AT, in which HHJ Auerbach set aside a finding of unfair dismissal on the basis that the tribunal judge had substituted his own view and erred in law in respect of the range of reasonable responses test.

Sarah acted for the successful Appellant.

Robin Pickard reviews the case of Scottish Water v Edgar [2024] EAT 32, in which the EAT reminds us that there is no substitute for a full and thorough consideration of all of the evidence when determining “the cause of the difference in pay”.

Emma Greening summarises the case of Hilton Foods Solutions Ltd v Andrew Wright [2024] EAT 28, in which the EAT considers if an employee can be considered to have ‘sought’ to take parental leave if they have not yet given formal notice.

3PB's specialist Court of Protection barrister Matthew Wyard explores the recent Court of Protection property and affairs case of Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation v (1) PW (2) the Public Guardian [2024] EWCOP 16.

Joseph England analyses the case of Wicked Vision Ltd v Rice [2024] EAT 29, in which the EAT re-confirms the Court of Appeal's decision in Osipov concerning a claimant's ability to claim for detriments that precede dismissal against a co-worker and against the corporate employer for its vicariously liability even if the losses that flow amount to those that flow from dismissal; and that a Claimant can claim for the detriment of dismissal against a co-worker.

The EAT however departs from the Court of Appeal in asserting that a Claimant is very unlikely to be able to claim for the detriment of dismissal against the corporate employer, having applied scrutiny to the Court's ratio in Osipov.

David Kemeny analyses the case Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2024] UKSC 6, which is of immense importance to understanding the fundamental legal principles underpinning the recoverability of damages in the law of tort, and should be read by students and practitioners alike.

Charles Fulton summarises the case of Kanwarjit Singh Juj v John Lewis Partnership PLC in which the claimant, an 83-year-old man, sustained a serious injury following a fall in a car park adjacent to a Waitrose store. A reminder that non-owners of premises may owe a duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

3PB pupil barrister Jack Felvus and specialist clinical negligence barrister Hamish Dunlop have written a case summary where the Supreme Court judgment provided clarity in secondary victim claims made in a clinical negligence context.

Gemma Ralph looks at The Court of Appeal decision in R (Peiris) v First-tier Tribunal, CICA & Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWCA Civ 1527, in which Mr Peiris was refused a bereavement payment from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority as he didn't satisfy the eligibility criteria. Mr Peiris appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.