Articles

3PB barrister Sarah Clarke analyses the latest employment law cases, covering:
• What constitutes ‘information’ in the context of making a protected disclosure? Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436
• When determining the amount of one’s holiday pay, should regular voluntary overtime be included? In the context of the NHS, should non-guaranteed and voluntary overtime be included? Yes to both, says the EAT: Flowers v East of England Ambulance Trust UKEAT/0235/17/JOJ
• Can a dismissal for a first offence of serious (not gross) misconduct ever be fair? Yes, says the EAT: Quintiles Commercial UK Ltd v Barongo UKEAT/0255/17/JOJ
• Supreme Court has upheld previous decisions that an ostensibly ‘self-employed’ plumber was in fact a ‘worker’: Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29

Through a glass darkly: reflections on reflective loss

John Jessup considers the recent Court of Appeal decision of Marex Financial Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1468 which answers the question of whether the rule against reflective loss (which prevents a shareholder bringing an action for loss of value of their shares) applies to unsecured creditors.

Christopher Edwards considers the case of First Tower Trustees Ltd and Intertrustees Limited v CDS (Superstores International) Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1396 and the role of basis clauses in avoiding liability in contracts.

Lachlan Wilson argues for parents before the Upper Tribunal that a powered wheelchair constitutes special educational provision. This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Local Government on 27 April 2018.

Nicholas Kaplan analyses the decision in Grove Developments v S&T: will Smash and Grab now Crash and Burn?

Commercial update: Unlawful distributions to directors, and limitation

In order for limitation in a claim against a director to be extended under section 21, does he need to have direct control of assets taken from the company? James Davies considers the impact of the Supreme Court’s most recent analysis (Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited v. Fielding [2018] UKSC 14).

Commercial update: Claim notification clauses in SPAs

When notifying a claim under a claim notification clause in a Share Purchase Agreement, what level of detail does the purchaser need to give? Christopher Edwards analyses the Court of Appeal’s most recent consideration of the issue (Teoco UK Ltd v Aircom Jersey 4 Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 23).

Race discrimination - 'Coconut' - Joseph England considers recent analysis of comparators and striking out

In Walters v Avanta Enterprise Limited [2017] UKEAT 0127_17_2112 (December 2017), Slade J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a case in which the Claimant argued that being labelled a ‘coconut’ (i.e. being black on the outside, white on the inside) demonstrated a racially discriminatory motivation but her claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The case examines how to correctly construct a comparator and also repeats the trite warning against striking out cases too readily at preliminary hearings. Joseph England appeared pro bono for the Appellant at the EAT for the r.3(10) stage, successfully obtaining permission to appeal and drafting the grounds of appeal that succeeded before Slade J.

3PB Family Barrister Emma Harman explains the lessons that can be learned from A Local Authority v G (Parent with Learning Disability) [2017] EWFC B94.

Commercial update - Richard Whitehouse: Valuers’ negligence in the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has again reconsidered causation and loss, in the context of a professional negligence claim against a valuer. Richard Whitehouse analyses the recent decision in Tiuta International Limited (in liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors Limited [2017] UKSC 77.

3PB Employment barristers Sarah Clarke and Simon Tibbitts analyse the latest employment law cases, covering:
1. Guidance of whose motivation will be taken into account in determining the “Employer’s” reason for dismissal: Royal Mail Limited v Kamaljeet Jhuti [2017] EWCA Civ 1632
2. EAT find that relying on previous instances of misconduct, for which no sanction had been applied, does not render a dismissal unfair: NHS 24 v Pillar UKEATS/0005/16/JW
3. Subjecting men and women to the same detriment can be ‘less favourable treatment’: HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah school [2017] EWCA Civ 1426
4. The Advocate General has ruled that employees may qualify for protection from pregnancy discrimination before informing employer about their pregnancy: Guisado v Bankia SA (Case C-102/16)

Please click below to read the case law update.

Scope of Duty and Causation of Loss: What can we learn from the Supreme Court about scope of duty & causation of loss?
BPE Solicitors-v-Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21 & Globalia Business Travel SAU-v-Fulton Shipping [2017] UKSC 43

To read Gavin Hamilton's analysis, please click below.