‘In Various Claimants v Barclays Bank PLC [2017] EWHC 1929 (QB), the High Court (The Hon Mrs Justice Davies DBE) held that Barclays Bank was vicariously liable in respect of alleged sexual assaults perpetrated by a Doctor, not employed by Barclays, who conducted medical assessments and examinations on prospective employees of the Bank.’
Henderson Chambers, 10th August 2017
Source: www.hendersonchambers.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
‘There are few local authorities in the country that haven’t experienced the enormous difficulties inherent in people setting up camp illegally in local parks and green spaces with their mobile homes and caravans, horses and dogs then leaving the area (voluntarily or otherwise) and landing the authority with an expensive bill for cleaning up.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 26th July 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Fighting for freedom? The historic and future relationship between conservatism and human rights (PDF)
Sir Michael Tugendhat
Bright Blue, August 2017
Source: www.brightblue.org.uk
‘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
The Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
The Enterprise Act 2016 (Commencement No. 5) Regulations 2017
The Warm Home Discount (Reconciliation) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (Consequential Amendments and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2017
Source: www.legislation.gov.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
‘Often, a litigator’s single greatest desire is for clarity: of instructions, tactics, or argument. Few circumstances can disrupt this as effectively as a large group of clients or opponents, each clamouring for different (often mutually exclusive) approaches. Once such a case reaches a certain size, it is simply not feasible to proceed in the usual way, with all parties giving evidence and making submissions. There are a number of ways of addressing this problem, each with unique benefits and pitfalls.’
Hardwick Chambers, 25th July 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
‘Coroners have no power to award costs of legal advice or representation at inquests. Where a successful civil claim follows, parties will naturally wish to recover the costs of the inquests as well as the costs of the civil proceedings from the losing party. The starting point is Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which enables the court to award costs “of and incidental to” civil proceedings.’
Park Square Barristers, 10th August 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The FTT had correctly ruled that a management agreement was for a term of more than twelve months, and therefore a long-term qualifying agreement for the purposes of s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.’
Tanfield Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024