John Barwell – Page 2

Darlington v Islington: COT3 settlements and whistleblowing protection gaps

Written by John Barwell 11 June 202611 June 2026

Whistleblowing · COT3 settlements · Early-years safeguarding The EAT decision in Mrs A Darlington v London Borough of Islington is an orthodox application of COT3 construction principles. Its wider significance lies in the gap it exposes: Parliament has created a sectoral recruitment-stage whistleblowing shield for NHS applicants, but not for workers in regulated early-years settings. … Continue reading “Darlington v Islington: COT3 settlements and whistleblowing protection gaps”

Regulatory Matters

John Edwards, the ICO and the accountability question at the heart of the UK’s data watchdog

Written by John Barwell 10 June 202610 June 2026

A careful Legal Lens analysis of John Edwards, the ICO, reported leadership uncertainty and the accountability standards expected of the UK’s data watchdog.

Dispute Resolution

Employment Tribunal hearing bundles: why the bundle is not the case

Written by John Barwell 8 June 20268 June 2026

A hearing bundle can look like the case, but it is not the case. It is the working file of documents the Employment Tribunal uses to follow the issues, evidence and cross-examination at the hearing.

Dispute Resolution

Disclosure in Employment Tribunal claims: why documents are not optional

Written by John Barwell 8 June 20268 June 2026

Disclosure is not optional document-sharing. Relevant documents may help your case, harm it, support the other side, or expose problems in the way the case is being put.

Dispute Resolution

Lists of issues in Employment Tribunal claims: how cases get narrowed without parties noticing

Written by John Barwell 7 June 20267 June 2026

A list of issues is not just a summary. It can shape what the tribunal hears, what evidence matters, and whether claims are narrowed without parties noticing.

Uncategorized

Employment Tribunal preliminary hearings: why the first case-management hearing is not a formality

Written by John Barwell 6 June 20266 June 2026

Employment Tribunal procedure • Preliminary hearings • Case management A preliminary hearing can look less dramatic than a final hearing. But it is not just an administrative appointment. It can define the issues, set the timetable, expose weak allegations, impose conditions and create deadlines with serious consequences. Category Employment Tribunal guidance Jurisdiction Great Britain employment … Continue reading “Employment Tribunal preliminary hearings: why the first case-management hearing is not a formality”

Dispute Resolution

Missing the ET3 deadline: when can a respondent still defend an Employment Tribunal claim?

Written by John Barwell 5 June 20265 June 2026

A missed ET3 deadline is serious, but it does not always end the respondent’s procedural options. The key question is which route applies: extension of time, rejection reconsideration, judgment under Rule 22, or judgment reconsideration.

Dispute Resolution

ET3 Response Deadline: Why Respondents Should Not Ignore Tribunal Papers

Written by John Barwell 4 June 20264 June 2026

The ET3 response is not ordinary correspondence. This article explains why a late, defective, rejected or missing response can trigger Rule 22 risks, restrict respondent participation, and require a properly evidenced extension application.

Dispute Resolution

Amending an ET1 After Submission: Correction, New Claim, or Procedural Risk?

Written by John Barwell 2 June 20262 June 2026

Amending an ET1 is not a guaranteed second chance. This article explains when a proposed change is likely to be treated as clarification, relabelling, a new claim, or a risky late amendment — and why limitation, prejudice, Rule 35 and Acas can matter.

Dispute Resolution

Wrong ET1? Rejected Claim? The Rule 14 Deadline Trap Claimants Miss

Written by John Barwell 1 June 20261 June 2026

ET1 drafting · rejected claims · Rule 14 Sending an ET1 before the deadline is not always enough. If the claim is defective, correctly rejected and only later rectified, Rule 14 may move the treated presentation date to the date the rectifying application was received. Category Tactical guidance note Jurisdiction Great Britain Reading time c. … Continue reading “Wrong ET1? Rejected Claim? The Rule 14 Deadline Trap Claimants Miss”