‘At first glance, two recent judgments from the CAT may give the impression that the new UK class action regime is dead in the water. However, on closer inspection there is much in these judgments that prospective claimants will welcome.
Blackstone Chambers, 7th August 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘On 25 July 2017, an FA Appeal Board allowed the appeal of Premier League player, Joey Barton, against the “excessive” ban on him from all football for 18 months, imposed as a result of breaches of The FA’s betting rules.’
Blackstone Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org
‘S 1(1) Civil Partnership Act 2004 stipulates that only a same-sex couple may conclude a civil partnership: “A civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex…”. Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan have sought judicial review of that provision and have been unsuccessful both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal.’
Law & Religion UK, 22nd August 2017
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘The Upper Tribunal upheld the First Tier Tribunal’s decision that units of accommodation designed for students were ‘dwellings’, but overturned the decision that such units were ‘separate dwellings’. As such, the FTT did not have jurisdiction to determine the amount of service charges payable by the units’ leaseholders under sections 18 to 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.’
Tanfield Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘In 2006, Swynson Ltd proposed to lend £15m to finance a management buy-out. It instructed Lowick Rose LLP (then called Hurst, Morrison Thomson (HMT)) to carry out due diligence on the target company. HMT did so negligently. But for its negligence, the loan would not have been made.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 28th July 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In an important decision on the correct interpretation of the burden of proof provisions in the Equality Act 2010, Efobi v Royal Mail, Tom Coghlin and Navid Pourghazi successfully appealed against an employment tribunal’s decision to dismiss a claimant’s race discrimination complaints.’
Cloisters, 14th August 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘The case concerned a claim by over 600 Turkish passengers against two airlines for failing to honour flights that they had booked to Cyprus. Legal advice was obtained and a meeting with solicitors was arranged by a committee at a local community centre, where CFAs were signed.’
Park Square Barristers, 7th August 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Navid Pourghazi considers the recent decision in Gillett v Bridge 86 Ltd (UKEAT/0015/17/DM) where the EAT overturned a refusal of an in-time application to amend a claim form and provided helpful guidance on how Tribunals should deal with such applications in the future. A copy of the judgment is available here.’
Cloisters, 27th July 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘As long ago as 1974 a benevolent approach to the assessment of the merits of a case was adopted in the Employment Tribunal (ET). Sir High Griffiths sitting in the NIRC, when addressing an application for costs, stated the following:
“Ordinary experience of life frequently teaches us that that which is plain for all to see once the dust of battle has subsided was far from clear to the combatants when they took up arms. We do not therefore attach undue weight to the fact that at the end of a skilful cross-examination on the last day of the hearing the employee was forced to concede that in the circumstances as they had emerged the employers had acted reasonably in dismissing him.”
(E. T. Marler Ltd v Robertson [1974] ICR 72.)’
Littleton Chambers, 25th July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Adam Ohringer considers the recent judgment of Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc [2017] EWHC 1929 (QB) and its implications on vicarious liability.’
Cloisters, 10th August 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘In recent years there has been increasing interest as to whether construction professionals need to produce an end design that is fit for purpose or simply to show that they exercised reasonable skill and care. The Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn the first instance judgment in MT Hojgaard v Eon (and the first instance decision of Coulson J in MW High Tech v Haase), dampened the excitement somewhat by emphasising the orthodox position that, absent something really quite categorical in the terms, it is the standard of reasonable skill and care that applies.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Nathaniel Caiden considers the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judgment in Dudley MBC v Willetts UKEAT/0334/16/JOJ that concerns the inclusion of voluntary overtime normally worked in calculating holiday pay.’
Cloisters, 1st August 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Caspar Glyn QC, Schona Jolly QC and Sian McKinley consider the implications of today’s seismic decision from the Supreme Court which ruled that ET fees are unlawful: R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51.’
Cloisters, 26th July 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘The Supreme Court have, this morning, handed down Judgment in the case of R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, more commonly known as ‘the appeal against Employment Tribunal fees’.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 26th July 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Dispute Resolution analysis: Colm Nugent, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers, explains why the appeal court will not readily countenance a complete change of case on an appeal when the claim or defence as advanced has been struck out, or summary judgment given.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th August 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘On 21 July, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) issued its decision dismissing an application for a collective proceedings order (“CPO”) in the MasterCard litigation (Walter Merricks v MasterCard Inc & ors [2017] CAT 16). It is a decision whose significance goes beyond the fact that it is a further illustration of the difficulties of advancing opt-out class actions. It remains the case that, despite nearly two years having elapsed since implementation of schedule 8 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, no CPO has been made, nor is one likely to be made at any time soon. Whilst the decision is subject to Mr Merricks’ right of appeal, this alerter briefly considers the implications for the management of class actions. In very broad terms, the decision underlines the requirements of a high level of precision and a sound and principled evidential basis in relation to: (1) the definition of the class; (2) the calculation of aggregate class damages; (3) the means for distributing damages within the class; and (4) the elements of a funding agreement.’
Henderson Chambers, 25th July 2017
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is a powerful way to avoid exclusions of liability. Its power, however, is tempered by need for one party to deal with the other ‘as a consumer or on the other’s written standard terms of business’ (s. 3(1)).’
Littleton Chambers, 19th July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Whilst the Taylor Review may be the talking point of the week, Michael Duggan QC writes that the case of Chesterton Global Limited v Mohamed Nurmohamed, Public Concern At Work (intervener) [2017] EWCA Civ 979, 10th July 2017 is perhaps the case of the week. It concerns the vexed question of good faith in public interest disclosures of whistleblowing.’
Littleton Chambers, 19th July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The Court of Appeal last week heard a case under the Care Act 2014 for the first time, with a disabled man challenging a High Court decision that a county council had acted lawfully in deciding to reduce his weekly personal budget by 42%.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st August 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025