Articles

Sunyana Sharma considers the High Court's decision in Sudheer Shabir v. General Medical Council [2023] EWNH 1772 (Admin), a useful reminder of the core principles that will be applied in professional disciplinary misconduct hearings and/or at the appeal stage.

Grace Nicholls considers the case of Macfarlane v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2023] EAT 111, a useful reminder that it is insufficient to simply tick the unfair dismissal box if a claim of whistleblowing is being pursued, and that the disavowal of a claim can indeed, rightly, have far reaching consequences for any application to amend subsequently.

Karen Moss reviews Fernandes v Department of Work and Pensions [2023] EAT 114, a case which gives practical guidance on what questions it is relevant for the ET to ask itself to determine when time starts to run in an omissions case.

Michelle Marnham and future 3PB Pupil Jeremy Warner analyse MXX v A Secondary School [2023] EWCA Civ 996, a case concerned with the grooming of a minor, in which the Court of Appeal clarified that work experience can be a relationship akin to employment for the purpose of vicarious liability. The Court confirmed the difficulty to satisfy the “close connection” test, which requires for the tort and the employment of the tortfeasor to be “inextricably woven”.

Mark Green on the case of Habib v Dave Whelan Sports Ltd t/a DW Fitness First [2023] EAT 113 and the EAT's important reminder to all involved in trials with vulnerable or disabled claimants, that proper attention to the ETBB and the Presidential Guidance on vulnerable witnesses will help reach robust judicial decisions and avoid future appeals.

Sarah Clarke reviews the case of Rajput v Commerzbank and Société Générale [2023] EAT, which appears to be the first appellate authority examining when a transfer takes place within a ‘series of transactions’ cases under TUPE regulation 3(6). The EAT also looked at the relevance of location of the business in a TUPE transfer.

Sarah Clarke acted for the successful appellant Jagruti Rajput.

Grace Holden considers Owen v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2023] EAT 106, a case in which the EAT ultimately confirms previous decisions of the EAT that the lack of an explanation as to why a claim is brought late is not a pre-requisite to extension of time being granted, but is of particular relevance.

The judgment provides useful learning points and reminders for practitioners dealing with just and equitable time extension arguments.

Katherine Anderson analyses AECOM Limited v Mallon [2023] EAT 104, a case in which the EAT provides a useful review of the authorities on what reasonable enquiries an employer should make of a disabled job applicant.

Alexander Whatley analyses the case of Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc v Goodrich Corporation [2023] EWHC 1637 (Comm), a case in which the High Court had to consider if the original, contractual agreement between the two parties or the incorrect invoice issued by the supplier was to take primacy in this commercial dispute.

Emma Greening considers Mrs R Kealy v Westfield Community Development Association [2023] EAT 96. In this case concerning protected disclosures a defective List of Issues led to a serious misapplication of the law. The EAT’s judgment is an illustrated warning that the List of Issues can play a pivotal role in the ETs decision-making and that we should take great care not to shortcut or summarise our way through drafting these documents.

Alex Leonhardt reflects on the case of Jackson v The University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust [2023] EAT 102, in which the EAT considers the application of Hogg v Dover dismissals to an employee in a contractual redundancy situation. The EAT gives guidance on how such claims are to be determined by Employment Tribunals.

Sarah Clarke on the case of Pilkington v Jones [2023] EAT 90, which serves as a warning to employers to very carefully consider the dismissal of an employee in cases of potential malingering as they could unwittingly find themselves facing a successful section 15 claim.