Pregnant then Screwed? High Court finds no discrimination in pandemic payments to self-employed mothers
An unsuccessful judicial review challenge to the impact of pandemic support payments to self-employed mothers sheds light on the equality outcomes of UK government policy
At a time when coronavirus legislation has softened the duties on local authorities to meet adult social care needs, a recent decision of the High Court has made it harder for claimants to use human rights law to seek compensation for delays and maladministration.
A new decision by the Court of Appeal confirms that the Home Office may be held liable in negligence for unreasonable delays in providing visa documents and that the Upper Tribunal can award damages in such claims.
The Upper Tribunal has taken a significant step forward for the protection of the rights of undocumented EU children in the UK, in the reported case of MS (British citizenship; EEA appeals) Belgium  UKUT 356 (IAC). Download my Q&A for LexisNexis here.
In a world first, the UK’s senior Court will hear Mr Bridges’ claim that police use of automated facial recognition technology infringed his right to privacy, data protection and discriminated contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Here’s an overview of this ground-breaking case.
The Upper Tribunal has taken a significant step forward for the protection of the rights of undocumented EU children in the UK, in the reported case of MS (British citizenship; EEA appeals) Belgium  UKUT 356 (IAC). Read my coverage of the case for freemovement.org.
In a rare step, the Court of Appeal has granted an application to re-open an appeal where the judge deciding it did not have the right documents and the appellant had nowhere else to turn for a remedy against a Home Office family visa refusal.
In an era of identity politics where ‘culture wars’ pit minority groups against one another, how can the Equality Act 2010 achieve fair and balanced outcomes? This case offers some answers.