3PB team on Birmingham's Pride March 2024
Five barristers - Susan Todd, Theresa Lim, Sarah Tierney, Laura Scott and Anthony Miller - from the Birmingham office of national chambers 3PB Barristers (3 Paper Buildings) joined other lawyers...
Search Results for: Quiz 2024 FCP_FAZ_AN-7.4: Useful FCP - FortiAnalyzer 7.4 Analyst Reliable Test Blueprint 🎼 Search for 【 FCP_FAZ_AN-7.4 】 and obtain a free download on 「 www.pdfvce.com 」 🌉FCP_FAZ_AN-7.4 Well Prep
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.
View ArticleDavid 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.
View ArticleIn January, 3PB’s Tom Webb appeared for the successful appellant in the Court of Appeal in the matter of Pearson -v- Secretary of State for Defence [2024] EWCA Civ 150. In this article, Tom discusses the case and the AFCS itself: required reading for those dealing with cases concerning current and former members of the Forces.
View ArticleBen 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.
View ArticleRobin 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”.
View ArticleEmma 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.
View ArticleBen Amunwa analyses the case of Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer [2024] UKSC 12, in which the UK Supreme Court hands out a victory for the protection of Trade Union freedoms and workers' rights, finding the UK to be in breach of ECHR article 11 as section 146(2) of TULRCA fails to provide protection from detriment for workers participating in lawful strike action.
View ArticleKatherine Anderson examines the cases of Stena Drilling PTE Limited v Smith [2024] EAT 57 and TwistDX Limited and Others v Armes and Others [2024] EAT 45, concerned with international or territorial jurisdiction and considers the need to carefully analyse the facts of the case and raise jurisdiction questions as a preliminary issue in the absence of an 'obvious and plain' answer.
View ArticleSuffian 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.
View ArticleSunyana Sharma considers the Court of Appeal's decision in Disclosure and Barring Service (‘DBS’) v. RI [2024] EWCA Civ 95, which confirms the Upper Tribunal's entitlement to decide that an appellant's denial of wrongdoing was credible and constituted a mistake of fact.
View ArticleBen Amunwa writes about the High Court’s decision in Smith v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1137 (Admin), and its finding that key parts of the Police, Crime, Sentencing Courts Act 2022 amendments to Part V of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, were unlawful. The amendments strengthened powers available in response to concerns about anti-social conduct perceived to be associated with ‘unauthorised encampments’. The Court’s judgment finds that the criminal law restrictions on persons who return to unauthorised encampments were a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the ECHR article 14 rights of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers.
The High Court’s decision means that Parliament now needs to amend the legislation so it is compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations.
View Article