‘Discrimination law is a complex and constantly evolving area of practice. Cases this year have provided clarification, enforcement and development of the legal principles underpinning claims under the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”).’
3PB, 13th December 2022
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a party claiming a subsequent increase in their equitable share as a result of a post-acquisition changed common intention must show detrimental reliance on the changed common intention. In this case there had been sufficient detrimental reliance.’
Falcon Chambers, 22nd December 2022
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘At the start of the Coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, the employer (via an external professional) carried out a Coronavirus risk assessment to identify areas of risk and put in place measures to protect its staff who worked in a large, ventilated factory space (about five employees in a space the size of half a football pitch). Despite this, on 27 March 2020 Mr Rodgers left the premises and subsequently made it clear to his employer he would not be returning until lockdown eased. A month later, having had no contact from Mr Rodgers, his employer terminated his employment.’
St Philips Barristers, 20th December 2022
Source: st-philips.com
‘The Claimant was employed by the respondent as a Security Officer from 24 March 2007. He was suspended on 12 April 2019. The Claimant was summarily dismissed on 24 September 2019 and he brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and victimisation. The claim form hinted at some other claim of discrimination. The Claimant was at all times unrepresented.’
Farrar's Buildings, 20th December 2022
Source: www.farrarsbuilding.co.uk
‘In this brief note Justin Valentine, Counsel for the claimant, discusses an unusual case where serious sciatic nerve injury was sustained by the claimant shortly after her birth in the mid-1960s, but where she only became aware of the negligence in her 50s over 30 years after the end of the primary limitation period. Limitation was initially raised as an issue but was dropped at CCMC stage. The case settled subsequent to a JSM for approximately £1.6 million.’
St John's Chambers, 3rd January 2023
Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk
‘Spire Barristers’ pupils Lauren Gardner and Eleanor Suthern discuss The House of Lords Children and Families Act 2014 Committee published report “Children and Families Act 2014: A failure of implementation” in which Joint Head of Chambers, Sarah Blackmore was called to give evidence as a leading practitioner in the field of Family Law and the author of the practitioner text Family Justice Reformed – Developments since the Children’s & Families Act 2014.’
Spire Barristers, 9th December 2022
Source: spirebarristers.co.uk
‘This article provides an overview of the court’s powers in limiting evidence heard during family court proceedings. I will be examining some key lessons on this topic as heard in the recent case of Mother v Father [2022] EWHC 3107 (Fam).’
Becket Chambers, 20th December 2022
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘The Public Interest Disclosure Act, which introduced Part IVA and S.103A into the Employment Rights Act 1996, was regarded as pioneering, world-leading, legislation when it was passed in 1998. The importance protecting whistleblowers has become generally accepted in the years since then, not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe and beyond.. It is a reasonable assumption that a great deal of “whistleblowing” takes place each and every day which, before 1998, would not have occurred and it does so without any adverse action being taken against the “whistleblowers”. That is a massive cultural change for the better. PIDA and those who framed it must take a great deal of credit for it. However there is no longer a consensus that the legislative framework and the way in which it operates in practice is fit for the purposes of, on the one hand, ensuring that responsible whistleblowers are protected from retribution and, on the other, seeing that those wrongs or hazards to which responsible whistleblowers have drawn attention are remedied or prevented. Indeed Georgina Halford-Hall CEO Whistleblowers UK, writing in the Introduction to All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Report “Making Whistleblowing Work for Society” said, “In 2020, PIDA is the equivalent of having teeth extracted without anaesthetic.” It is difficult to disagree. And in 2022 the orthodontic experience she was referring to is likely to be even more painful.’
Littleton Chambers, 5th December 2022
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘Dispute Resolution analysis: A large award of damages and/or equitable compensation has been made against the directors and connected companies of a company which was used to perpetrate a large scale labour supply fraud against HMRC.’
Gatehouse Chambers, 21st December 2022
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
‘Where a local authority (the “Billing Authority”) has reasonable grounds for believing that a person (individual or company) is liable for national non-domestic rates (“business rates”) in respect to a premises (a “hereditament”), the Billing Authority is likely to serve a demand notice upon that person (the “alleged ratepayer”; or “demandee”) in respect to a liability period. The service of the demand notice being the first stage in seeking payment from the ratepayer.’
33 Bedford Row, 19th December 2022
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 came into force in April 2021. Section 65 of the Act (which amends the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA) creates prohibitions which “prohibit cross-examination in person”.’
Garden Court Chambers, 23rd December 2022
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘It is commonplace now for the trustee of almost any sort of trust to be a company, and for the individuals who may colloquially be referred to as “the trustees” to in fact not be trustees at all, but to be the directors of the trustee company. Occupational pension schemes have been particularly keen adopters of this structure. In some respects it makes little difference to the beneficiaries: the trustee is the trustee, whether an individual or a company. But when the individuals involved are alleged to have acted in breach of their duties, the corporate structure allows for more complex claims than the ordinary breach of trust claim that would be brought against individual trustees.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 20th December 2022
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘The benefits of rehabilitation are well known. Numerous academic studies have demonstrated its importance and the net economic benefit (to both society and insurers) from its early introduction and funding. Despite that, many insurers continue to take a hostile and unsupportive attitude driven, perhaps, by a suspicion that a claimant will seek to introduce care, therapies, equipment or accommodation that might somehow increase the value of any eventual claim. I don’t believe that to be the case. In fact, my own experience is strongly that those insurers and defendant solicitors who actively support and fund early rehabilitation (and it is right to highlight that many do), even when liability is disputed, invariably end up achieving an earlier settlement with a costs saving and, on occasions, a saving in damages arising from the better recovery enjoyed by the claimant.’
Exchange Chambers, 22nd December 2022
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
Boundary disputes, whether concerning large or small amounts of land, are evidentially and legally complex. As a result, they often involve significant costs. In Davis & Anor v Winner, His Honour Judge Mithani KC, in somewhat of a surprising judgment, stated, obiter dictum, that to prevent disproportionate costs in boundary disputes involving a small amount of land they should be allocated to the Small Claims Track (“SCT”). Davis has been subsequently relied upon by District Judges to allocate analogous cases to the SCT. However, given the complex characteristics of boundary disputes, it is necessary to undertake a detailed assessment of their suitability for the SCT.
Pallant Chambers, 14th December 2022
Source: www.pallantchambers.co.uk
‘Join Andreas Gledhill KC as he explores the implications of the recent Court of Appeal decision Re Compound Photonics Group Ltd; Faulkner v. Vollin Holdings Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1371.’
Blackstone Chambers, 13th December 2022
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Colin Wells discusses the recent case of ANP [2022] EWCA Crim 1111 in which the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered the circumstances of when a case might be stayed as an abuse of process when important evidence has been lost or destroyed.’
25 Bedford Row, 5th December 2022
Source: www.25bedfordrow.com
‘AXX (A protected party by his litigation friend XRE) v. Zajac [2022] EWHC 2463 is the first reported case in the High Court (KBD) concerning the ‘new’ CPR Practice Direction 1A which requires the court to take all proportionate measures to address any impediment to a party’s participation in proceedings caused by their ‘vulnerability’. Master McCloud granted an application made on behalf of the Claimant (who was a protected party due to a psychotic condition which had arisen after his accident) for a trial of causation as a preliminary issue on the basis that, if successful at that stage, the Claimant could seek interim funding for treatment to address his psychiatric symptoms and allow him to participate fully in the subsequent quantum trial. The Master also refused an application from the Defendant for an ‘unless’ order (whereby the claim would be stayed unless the Claimant cooperated with examinations to be performed by the Defendant’s instructed medical experts) because of concerns about the Claimant’s capacity to consent to examination. This decision illustrates the important role that PD1A has in shaping case management decisions to protect the interests of parties with vulnerabilities.’
Exchange Chambers, 22nd December 2022
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘Keoghs recently wrote about their triple success in defeating claims for psychological injury arising out of road traffic accidents. The common denominator of the three claims was that each of the Claimants sought to rely upon the medical evidence of a specific Consultant Psychologist. Sharan Sanghera acted for the Defendant in one of those Claims, her comment on the case appears below.’
3PB, 13th December 2022
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The issue of the recoverability of VAT in the assessment of costs is unusual, but a 20% difference in the sum to be paid as a paying party can be very significant. The issue became very contentious in this case, with the RP contending in their skeleton argument that the point raised was “bizarre and bound to fail”.’
Guildhall Chambers, 6th December 2022
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has handed down a significant judgment on the interpretation of settlement agreements; and specifically, whether a settlement agreement was intended to, and has the effect of, precluding or releasing claims arising from fraud, conspiracy or other intentional wrongdoing despite not expressly referring to such claims.’
Blackstone Chambers, 21st December 2022
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025