Articles

Suffian Hussain reviews the judicial review claim of TTT, R (On the Application of) v Michaela Community Schools Trust [2024] EWHC 843 (Admin) (16 April 2024), in which the High Court decided that the policy of Michaela School to prohibit prayer rituals for all of its pupils was lawful.

3PB's public law, education and employment barrister Ben Amunwa briefs on the recent Court of Appeal judgment in ASY & Others v Home Office [2024] EWCA Civ 373.

Andrew MacPhail considers the case of Worcestershire Health and Care and NHS Trust v Ms Allen [2024] EAT 40, which serves as a helpful reminder that the issue of causation in Equality Act harassment involves ascertaining the cause of the conduct in question rather than that of the wider context; and which also provides a useful analysis of what is required to satisfy the concept of “conduct extending over a period” for the purposes of limitation.

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.