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.
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 ArticleSimon Tibbitts reviews British Airways Plc v Mello and ors [2024] EAT 53, in which useful guidance is given on the approach that should be taken when deciding what allowances are part of ‘normal’ pay for holiday pay calculation purposes.
The EAT also examines the current legal position in relation to the concept of a ‘series’ of deductions following the recent decision in Agnew [2023] UKSC 33.
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 ArticleAndrew 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.
View ArticleRobin Pickard on the case of Kaur v Sun Mark Ltd and Others [2024] EAT 41, in which the deliberate destruction of evidence to prevent its inspection ahead of a remedies hearing led to the claim being struck out.
Further, the EAT’s adoption of authorities from the civil courts in relation to the suppression of evidence, and its relationship with the ability to hold a fair hearing, is noted.
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 ArticleDaniel Brown analyses Meade v (1) Westminster City Council & (2) Social Work England (Case Numbers: 2201792/2022 and 2211483/2022), in which the Employment Tribunal found that Social Work England seriously abused its power as a regulatory body, violating a Social Worker’s Convention rights and unlawfully discriminating against her.
This case is a useful reminder of the Supreme Court's confirmation in Michalak that the ET has jurisdiction to consider claims against professional regulators, unless a complaint about the matter in question may be pursued via a statutory appeal.
View ArticleDr 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.
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