<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>When I started on 1^st October, it felt like an age had passed since I was offered pupillage back in May 2023. In contrast, my first month at Parklane Plowden has passed by in a flash. &nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Under the supervision of Jim Hester, I have observed a range of client conferences, a joint settlement meeting and interim application hearings from his busy and interesting industrial disease and personal injury practice. Prior to each conference or hearing, I have considered the case papers, assessed the facts and law and made my own judgement on the case. Discussing the case with Jim before or after the attendance has helped build my understanding and knowledge of often complicated industrial disease concepts such as noise-induced hearing loss claims.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Alongside court-based or client-facing work with Jim, I have been developing my written advocacy skills by drafting pleadings and advices on quantum or liability. This has exposed me to the differences in approach between members of Chambers and has afforded me the opportunity to experiment with my own style in turn. It has also helped me to understand the wide range of personal injury work in Chambers and the type of instructions I am likely to receive when on my feet in 5 months’ time.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>I have also been fortunate to shadow other members of Chambers over my first month. I have attended two fast-track trials with Andrew Crouch, as well as application hearings with Bharat Jangra and Robert Dunn and a pre-inquest review hearing with Peter Yates. Observing these varieties of hearing has shown me that an important aspect of the Bar involves adapting advocacy style to the relevant forum and audience in order to meet the needs and objectives of your client, whatever they may be.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>It has also been interesting to observe different approaches to witness handling and how the outcome of a case can turn on an effective cross-examination. I witnessed one particularly pertinent example of this while shadowing Nicola Twine at Leeds County Court, where Nicola’s meticulous approach to cross-examination assisted her in obtaining a finding of fundamental dishonesty against a Claimant seeking damages for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. It was also an important lesson in how to react and adapt to the unexpected when cross-examining.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Overall, I have really enjoyed my first month in Chambers. Alongside all of the hard work has been some excellent opportunities to get to know members of Chambers and staff, as well as other pupils and barristers on the North East Circuit. Everyone has been so welcoming and I’m looking forward to what lies ahead in the months to come!</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>R (Child Abduction: Parent’s Refusal to Accompany) [2024] EWCA Civ 1296</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Avaia Williams, a first six pupil under the supervision of Sara Anning and Rebecca Musgrove, summarises the recent Court of Appeal Judgment in <em><u>R (Child Abduction: Parent’s Refusal to Accompany)</u></em> [2024] EWCA Civ 1296 for Family Law Week.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This recent Court of Appeal decision addresses the complexities of the 1980 Hague Convention on child abduction, focusing on Article 13(b) and the implications where a parent refuses to return with the child to the country of habitual residence. In this case, the mother, a British national, brought her children to England after the breakdown of her marriage to their Algerian father in France. While the father initially accepted this arrangement, he later sought a summary return under the Hague Convention. The mother opposed the application, claiming that returning the children to France without her would place them at a "grave risk" of harm.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In its judgment, the Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Peter Jackson, upheld the decision of the first instance court despite a misdirection on the law, although it noted that assertions of non-return must be carefully scrutinised. The Court observed that a summary assessment of a parent’s intention not to return should be robust and evidence-based, taking into account the welfare of the child as well as the integrity of the Convention.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This case serves as a reminder to practitioners of the importance of detailed evidence when presenting claims under Article 13(b). Courts are encouraged to assess assertions critically while ensuring that Article 13(b) remains available for genuine cases where a child’s welfare is at serious risk.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The full summary on Family Law Week can be found <a href="https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/judgments/r-child-abduction-parents-refusal-to-accompany-2024-ewca-civ-1296/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The full Judgment can be found <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1296.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Re: V (Appeal: Relocation) [2024] EWHC 2600 (Fam)</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Avaia Williams, a first six pupil under the supervision of Sara Anning and Rebecca Musgrove, examines the recent judgment of the High Court in <em><u>Re V (Appeal: Relocation)</u></em> [2024] EWHC 2600 (Fam) and explores the approach in relocation cases.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Full Judgment can be found <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/2600.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Court was concerned with the question of whether to allow a child to relocate following her mother securing employment in another city, the appeal raised issues of procedural fairness, the handling of cross-examination, and the delicate balancing act required when determining the best interests of a child in relocation cases.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Facts</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The parents, who at the time of the appeal both lived in Southern England, shared care of their daughter under a joint lives-with order made by HHJ Simmonds in August 2023, with the child spending 8 out of every 14 days with her mother and the remaining time with her father. There are no safeguarding concerns and both parents were acknowledged to be capable of meeting their daughter’s needs.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In February 2024, the mother made a specific issue application seeking permission to relocate with the child to the Midlands, having secured a full-time position. However, just before the hearing, the Respondent changed her plans and proposed moving to a city in the North of England to take up a part-time permanent position. Following a two-day hearing, Recorder Southern permitted the relocation, varying the joint care arrangements to reflect the Respondent’s new working hours and location.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The father, the Appellant, sought permission to appeal, challenging both the process and the substance of the Recorder’s decision. His grounds of appeal were based upon procedural irregularity in cross-examination, an erroneous finding that relocation was a "binary decision," and factual errors in assessing the Respondent’s need to relocate for work.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Legal Background</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The case brought into focus the long-established principles governing relocation and procedural fairness in family law proceedings. Relocation cases, whether internal or external, are governed by the paramountcy of the child’s welfare under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, with the court applying the welfare checklist to determine the outcome. As set out in <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/1305.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Re C (Internal Relocation)</em> [2015] EWCA Civ 1305</a>:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“…the proper approach to the whole issue of relocation may be stated in summary as follows:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>a)&nbsp; There is no difference in basic approach as between external relocation and internal relocation. The decision in either type of case hinges ultimately on the welfare of the child.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>b)&nbsp; The wishes, feelings and interests of the parents and the likely impact of the decision on each of them are of great importance, but in the context of evaluating and determining the welfare of the child.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>c)  In either type of relocation case, external or internal, a Judge is likely to find helpful some or all of the considerations referred to in <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/166.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052</a>; but not as a prescriptive blueprint; rather and merely as a checklist of the sort of factors which will or may need to be weighed in the balance when determining which decision would better serve the welfare of the child."</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>On reviewing the law upon procedural fairness, Ms Justice Henke reminded the Court of <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/215.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>P (A Child: Fair Hearing)</em> [2023] EWCA Civ 215</a> where it was stated that:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“It is a fundamental principle, rooted in the common law concept of natural justice and reflected in the ECHR, that a legally valid decision can only spring from a fair hearing. If a hearing is unfair, a judgment cannot stand…”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Court also restated the factors considered in <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/734.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Re C (Children: Covid 19: Representation)</em> [2020] EWCA Civ 754</a>, which reviewed the aspects relevant to the common law and Article 6 rights to a fair hearing:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“(1)&nbsp; Fairness is case-specific and is to be assessed in relation to the proceedings in their entirety.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>(2)&nbsp; There must be protection not only from actual unfairness but also from the risk of unfairness.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>(3)&nbsp; The right of access to the court must be effective, so that the individual has the opportunity to address all material that might affect the court's decision and is placed in a position to call evidence and to cross-examine.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>(4)&nbsp; The importance attached to the welfare of the child must not prevent a parent being able effectively to participate in the decision-making process.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>(5)&nbsp; The principle of equality of arms entails a reasonable opportunity to present one's case, including one's evidence, in a way that does not place one at a substantial disadvantage to one's opponent.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>(6)&nbsp; The administration of justice requires not only fairness but the appearance of fairness. However, the misgivings of individuals with regard to the fairness of the proceedings must be capable of being objectively justified.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>(7)&nbsp; The determination must be made within a reasonable time: Article 6 itself."</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The Appeal</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The appeal focused on two broad areas: procedural fairness and whether Recorder Southern had correctly exercised her discretion in granting the relocation. The Appellant argued that the Recorder’s interruptions during cross-examination prevented a fair hearing, thus violating his Article 6 rights. He also argued that the Recorder erred in considering the decision to relocate as a "binary" one, failing to consider a third option, namely that the Respondent could continue commuting while the child remained in the South of England.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Ms Justice Henke, in reviewing the appeal, acknowledged that Recorder Southern’s interruptions were not ideal but held that they did not amount to procedural unfairness. The judge maintained that Recorder Southern had allowed sufficient cross-examination on the key issues and was entitled to manage the trial to ensure efficiency. The Recorder’s decision to characterise the relocation as a "binary" one was explained in her judgment as referring to the ultimate decision – whether the child should move or not. While the use of the term "binary" could have been clearer, the judge found that this did not indicate a closed mind, and that the Recorder had given due consideration to the welfare checklist and the third option proposed by the Appellant.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Commentary</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The decision in Re V highlights the finely balanced nature of relocation cases and the complexities involved in weighing a child’s welfare against the interests of the parents. Ms Justice Henke’s judgment underscores that appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with findings of fact made at first instance unless they are plainly wrong. The Judgment draws on established principles from <a href="https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/27.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Piglowska v Piglowski</em> [1999] 1 WLR 1360</a>, reiterating that appellate courts should not subject first-instance decisions to a narrow textual analysis, especially when the trial judge has had the advantage of hearing live evidence and assessing the credibility of the parties firsthand.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>One of the most striking aspects of the appeal was the Appellant’s argument that Recorder Southern had wrongly confined her decision to a binary choice. Relocation cases, as noted in Re C (Internal Relocation), often present a stark choice between permitting or denying a move. However, this case illustrates the importance of considering alternative arrangements, such as commuting, especially where, as here, the parent seeking relocation has been commuting regularly for work. Ms Justice Henke acknowledged that the Recorder had considered the third option in her judgment but ultimately found that the Respondent’s evidence – that she would not take the job if required to commute – made this option unrealistic.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Another key issue raised in the appeal was the Recorder’s finding that the Respondent’s motivation for relocating was genuine and not an attempt to undermine the child’s relationship with her father. Relocation cases often involve a degree of tension between the parents, and it is vital that the court scrutinises the motivations behind such applications. In this case, the Recorder was satisfied that the Respondent’s desire to relocate was driven by professional considerations, not by a wish to limit the Appellant’s role in the child’s life.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Relocation cases present some of the most challenging decisions in family law. Judges must balance the emotional, psychological, and logistical impacts of a move on the child, while also considering the rights and wishes of both parents. The welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration, but in practice, this can be difficult to determine when both parents are capable, loving, and involved in the child’s life. The paramountcy of the child’s voice is brought into question in such cases when principles in Payne are still considered, notably the impact upon the proposed relocating parent should permission to relocate be refused</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In Re V, the court's approach reflects the need for a careful, holistic assessment of the facts, but it also demonstrates that such decisions are often very finely balanced.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Those representing parents in these cases must ensure that reasonable alternatives to relocation are explored, including the possibility of commuting or other arrangements that minimise disruption to the child’s life. Courts, too, must remain vigilant in ensuring that the child’s welfare is genuinely prioritised. As relocation cases often involve conflicting parental interests, it is essential that the child’s voice, either through a Guardian or otherwise, is not lost in the process. Decisions about relocation can have long-term consequences for the child’s emotional and psychological well-being, and the courts must ensure that all options are fully considered before a final decision is made – what is best for the parents, might not ultimately be what is best for the child. The judgment in Re V reaffirms the principle that relocation decisions are highly fact-specific, and that the discretion of the first-instance judge should not be easily displaced. Though it serves as a reminder of the need for scrutiny of both the legal and practical aspects of relocation, particularly where alternative solutions may be viable. The question of what is in a child’s best interests in such cases will always depend on the unique circumstances of the family, but this exercise should not be one where the best interests of the overall family or the parents is elevated to the same level as what is in the best interests of the child.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Anna Datta chaired yesterday's <a href="https://www.avma.org.uk/events/court-of-protection-conference-hilton-leeds-city-hotel/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">AvMA Court of Protection conference</a> in Leeds.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conference examined the current state of litigation and the challenges and responsibilities facing practitioners who work in this area.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Anna also spoke at the event, covering Fluctuating Capacity and Anticipatory Orders / Declarations.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Monday</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>My last day of first six. Whilst eagerly anticipating the week to come when my practising certificate kicked in the next day, I made my way to an employment noting brief for an internal ‘SOSR’ disciplinary hearing. As the only instructions pupils are permitted to accept in their first six, noting briefs are a great way to do your own work and meet new people. This instance even meant I was able to witness the meetings prior to a tribunal claim, which usually barristers would not be privy to, so it was an interesting experience.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Tuesday</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The first papers in my name started to appear in my inbox. I got to work on employment merits assessments and infant quantum advice documents – having to get used to signing my papers with my own name! I got an early insight into the last minute nature of the profession when my case for the next day settled at 2pm and by 5pm I was receiving new instructions for 10am the next morning. The start of second six is a great time to attend outreach events, as I am experiencing junior practice myself for the first time. On Tuesday evening I joined my colleagues at a networking event for BPP at Newcastle University, where I spoke to a lot of ambitious aspiring barristers.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Wednesday</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Following an early (and rainy) drive down to Middlesborough in the morning, I met my opponent and client in my first small claim RTA. On the papers I had not been optimistic about our prospects of defending the claim, but in cross-examination it became clear that there were inconsistencies in the claimant’s account, so I was pleased that the judge awarded a result of split liability. It was a nerve-racking but rewarding first case, and in the afternoon I went back to Chambers to switch my employment law brain on in advance of the next day.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Thursday</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>I spent the morning in our Leeds Chambers preparing for a mock employment tribunal run by Blacks Solicitors. Acting as counsel for the respondent two days into my second six in front of almost 100 professionals was a unique experience, but I thoroughly enjoyed cross-examining on the topical area of menopausal discrimination and luckily, Sophie Firth was a very fair judge.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Once again I took the opportunity to speak to aspiring barristers, this time at the BPP Leeds offices, where I sat on a panel together with three barristers from various Chambers, talking about life at the Bar. I enjoyed speaking to students about my experiences of the Bar course and pupillage applications.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Friday</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The new age of virtual hearings meant that I was able to do my stage 3 telephone hearing from Chambers in the morning. I take great comfort in knowing my colleagues are only on the other side of the wall if I have any queries and thankfully, as my hearing was the first slot of the day, I was still left with plenty of time to work on papers and my cases for next week before enjoying a restful weekend.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>I thoroughly enjoyed my first week ‘on my feet’, particularly beginning to develop my own style of cross-examination following six months of observing others. I look forward to building my practice and I am now receiving instructions in employment and civil matters. My pupil supervisors are Amy Rumble and Claire Millns.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden Chambers has been ranked as a Band One set across five practice areas and a Band Two set across two practice areas in the Chambers &amp; Partners 2025 rankings.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Chambers has been listed as Band One, the highest ranking a set can achieve, across the Chancery, Clinical Negligence, Employment, Family: Children and Personal Injury practice areas.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden is the sole set to be ranked in Band One for both Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury on the North Eastern Circuit.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Additionally, the set has been ranked as a Band Two set for both Family: Matrimonial Finance and Inquests &amp; Public Inquiries.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Individual members received 67 rankings in this year’s edition across:<br><br>• Chancery<br>• Clinical Negligence<br>• Commercial Dispute Resolution<br>• Employment<br>• Family: Children<br>• Family: Matrimonial Finance<br>• Inquests &amp; Public Inquiries<br>• Personal Injury<br>• Personal Injury: Industrial Disease<br>• Professional Negligence<br>• Real Estate Litigation</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We are very sad to announce that Sharon Robson, our much loved Senior Practice Director, has retired from her role in Chambers on medical grounds. Many of those who know her will be aware that, until recently, she had been undergoing treatment for cancer.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Sharon began her groundbreaking career at Trinity Chambers, where she joined as office junior straight from school, later progressing to become the first ever female barristers’ clerk in Newcastle. She joined Plowden Chambers in 2005 as Deputy Senior Clerk, working alongside Mike Stubbs. The chambers she joined has undergone a huge transformation over the years, including the merger with Parklane Chambers in 2009 and substantial growth thereafter. Sharon played a crucial part in making those changes a success.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Calm, hardworking, reliable and efficient, Sharon has been a key member of our senior clerking team and is held in high regard by members and clients alike. She has been the driving force behind the employment team for many years and has nurtured, developed and played a pivotal role in the careers of many current and former members, including a number who have gone on to have successful judicial careers.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Sharon has consistently gained plaudits in Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 for the excellence of her work and her client service. This year, for example, she was described as “fantastic” and “one of the best clerks I have dealt with in my career."</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In recent years, and through some very difficult times, she has shown enormous resilience, loyalty and leadership, battling her cancer with incredible bravery and fortitude. She has been an inspiration to the rest of us and will be hugely missed in Chambers by members, staff and clients alike. Our thoughts are with her and her family.&nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Should any readers wish to send a message to Sharon, they should do so by emailing <a href="mailto:Elizabeth.Hodgson@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Elizabeth.Hodgson@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a> and we will ensure it is passed on.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Join Hylton Armstrong for a two part practical review of 10 recent decisions of the High Court in high value personal injury road traffic claims including:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Miah v Jones [2024] EWHC 92 (KB)</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Smith v Clarke [2024] EWHC 322 (KB)</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Owens v Lewis [2024] EWHC 609 (KB)</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>RTP v Hardcrete Ltd [2024] EWHC 1123 (KB)</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Doughty v Kazmierski [2024] EWHC 1393 (KB)</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Kirk v Culina Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 1431 (KB)</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Gadsby v Hayes [2024] EWHC 2142 (KB)</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Colizzi v Coulson [2024] EWHC 1956 (KB)</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>&nbsp;Atkinson v Kennedy [2024] EWHC 2299 (KB)&nbsp;</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Palmer v Timms [2024] EWHC 2292 (KB)&nbsp;</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This two part seminar aims to provide practitioners with the up-to-date knowledge required to effectively litigate high value road traffic liability disputes. This talk will take place via Zoom. Once registered, participants will receive the Zoom link via email the day before the talk.&nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The first part of this seminar will take place from 12:30pm - 1:30pm on the 3rd of December. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The second part will take place from 12:30pm - 1:30pm on the 10th of December. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If you would like to attend this webinar please contact us via <a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden Chambers has expanded its Equality &amp; Diversity Committee (EDC) which comprises 15 members from staff, barristers and our Equality &amp; Diversity Officers (EDOs), Nicola Twine and Leila Benyounes. The full committee is:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Nicola Twine</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Leila Benyounes</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Hari Menon</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Philippa Wordsworth</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Elizabeth Jones</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Lucy Bairstow</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Sophie Firth</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Tom Barclay-Semple</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Shabab Rizvi</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Chloe Branton</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Bharat Jangra</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Robert Allen</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Rob Coates</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Emma Frazer</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Francine Whittleston</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The work of the EDC remains focussed on actions to ensure regulatory compliance on behalf of Parklane Plowden and improve equality and diversity within Chambers.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In expanding the committee, members have each taken an area of responsibility. Allocated areas include: Pupillage Monitoring; NEC diversity; Women’s Forum and Pledge; Accessibility; Policies; Race Action Plan; and Income Monitoring.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The EDC’s largest piece of work remains income monitoring following the Bar Council’s findings which showed disparity of income between gender.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The EDC has contributed to the review into bullying and harassment at the Bar being led by Harriet Harman KC, who attended Parklane Plowden to discuss the review with Nicola Twine on a visit to the North Eastern Circuit.  The report from the review is expected for publication in summer 2025. The EDC will be responding on behalf of Parklane Plowden to the BSB consultation on the proposed revision to equality rules.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden is pleased to announce that Isabella Brunton has started her second six and is available to take instructions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Isabella Brunton commenced her specialist civil law pupillage in April 2024 under the supervision of Claire Millns.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>To instruct Isabella please contact: <a href="mailto:clerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">clerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a> or call us on 0113 228 5000.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->