Our Employment Group

42 Bedford Row has a strong group of barristers in its employment practice, ranging from senior practitioners to rising stars more recently called to the Bar. We work across the full spectrum of employment law, focusing strongly on delivering pragmatic, commercial solutions.

Our clients include major employers, small businesses and major public and private sector organisations as well as employees at all levels with requirements ranging from legal advice and opinion to specialist representation during complex disputes.

Our barristers regularly appear in Employment Tribunals, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the High Court - and they are no strangers to boardrooms when providing a legal dimension to business strategy.

We will always quantify the costs and risks from the start and explore all options, including mediation and arbitration, to maximise your returns (while never losing sight of the principles at stake).

Here are the areas of employment law in which we specialise:

• Unfair Dismissal
• Discrimination – including sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion or belief
• Redundancy, TUPE and other employment protection issues
• Whistleblowing
• Wrongful Dismissal and other disputes relating to contracts of employment
• Restrictive covenants
• Equal Pay
• Disciplinary hearings
• Drafting of employment policies, contracts of employment etc 

Employment seminar series

We have a comprehensive programme of employment seminars and workshops that we can deliver in your offices or in Chambers. The current programme can be found here. We can also create a bespoke seminar or workshop specifically for you, on request. If you would like to know more about our seminar programme please contact Steve Sheridan for details.

Many members of the group also provide services directly to businesses and members of the public through the Direct Access scheme . For more details contact Steve Sheridan.

Here are some examples of our recent work:-

• Keeping Kids Company (In Compulsory Liquidation) v Smith [2018] IRLR 484 – Iris Ferber acted for over 100 former employees of Kids Company, and successfully resisted the appeal of the company’s liquidator against the ET’s majority decision that there were no “special circumstances” exempting Kids Company from collective consultation.  Judge Eady QC upheld the decision that the events leading to the collapse of Kids Company were not “special circumstances”, because the duty to collectively consult had already crystallised before they took place.
• Fahim Afzal v Domino’s Pizza EAT (Judge Richardson) Susan Chan acted for an assistant manager with the Respondent, in successfully appealing to the EAT against the employment tribunal’s finding that the employer’s failure to give him an appeal did not make his dismissal unfair. He was a spouse of an EEA national who had been dismissed for failing to disclose that he had made an in-time Home Office application to extend his leave, on the day that his leave expired, even though he at all times held leave and could have proved this if given an appeal.
• Townend v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd – Claimant appealed the decision of the Leeds Employment Tribunal that he had been fairly dismissed. Jude Shepherd acted for the Respondents at first instance (claim by the Claimant for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination) and at the EAT. The Tribunal decision on unfair dismissal was a majority decision with the Employment Judge dissenting. EAT found that there had been no error of law in the judgment and dismissed the appeal
• Durrant v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary (No. 2) EWCA Civ 1808 Tim Adkin successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court arising from the failure of the trial judge to consider the operation of the two-stage burden of proof and also the quantum of damages in a claim of race discrimination against a police force.
• Witts v Wyre Forest School EAT (Judge Eady QC) Susan Chan acted for the appellant teaching assistant in his EAT appeal, which was successful because the tribunal hearing his unfair dismissal claim had failed to take account that appellant was acting in self-defence. The appellant had been dismissed for gross misconduct from school for an incident in which a special needs pupil fell to the ground after attacking the appellant.
• Daly & Green v. Quality Premier Services Ltd. Nicholas Bidnell- Edwards represented two Claimants and succeeded in proving that a recruitment agency had been the employer of two Claimants, and had discriminated against them by failing to make maternity payments.