We use cookies to offer you a better experience and analyse site traffic.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

Creating workable solutions…



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. 

News & events

L v Q Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1417

Safia Tharoo acted for Q Ltd in this case The Court of Appeal (Bean LJ and Rose LJ) has handed down its judgment in the case of L v Q Ltd, which was heard at short notice in light of the importance of the issues involved.

15th August 2019 Read more

McNeil v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 112

McNeil v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 112 answers the question of whether a tribunal should approach “particular disadvantage” in equal pay and indirect discrimination cases by reference to averages or differential distribution? Differential what?! Rad Kohanzad provides a summary on McNeil v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 112

4th July 2019 Read more

Employment Newsletter

Welcome to the latest roundup from our barristers at 42 Bedford Row Employment Practice, with the latest news and unique insights from our team.

23rd August 2018 Read more

Employment Newsletter

Welcome to the latest roundup from our barristers at 42 Bedford Row Employment Practice, with the latest news and unique insights from our team.

29th January 2018 Read more

Stefan Liberadzki represents Employment Tribunal claimant who successfully establishes “employee” status for claim under the Equality Act

In EP v The Gym Ltd, the Claimant (referred to here as ‘EP’) was engaged by a nationwide chain of low-cost 24-hour gyms as a “freelance personal trainer”. His claim for disability discrimination arises from the Respondent’s termination of his contract on the grounds of absence from work, which he says was caused by a medical condition amounting to a disability.

4th January 2018 Read more

Employment Newsletter

Welcome to the latest roundup from our barristers at 42 Bedford Row Employment Practice, with the latest news and unique insights from our team.

25th October 2017 Read more

2017 Annual Employment Lecture: The Common Law Constitution At Work

42 Bedford Row invite you to their 2017 Annual Lecture on Thursday 28th September 2017 at 18.00pm: Followed by a drinks reception where you will get the opportunity to meet the speakers and members from our employment team. 42 Bedford Row are delighted to announce that Professor Alan Bogg will deliver our 2017 Annual Lecture.

11th September 2017 Read more

Employment Newsletter

Welcome to the latest roundup from our barristers at 42 Bedford Row Employment Practice, with the latest news and unique insights from our team. ET fees. What now? Yesterday employment practitioners up and down the land celebrated Unison’s victory in the Supreme Court but now as the news sinks the judgment raises many questions.1.

21st August 2017 Read more

Tiffin v Chief Constable of Surrey

Reading ET handed down Judgment yesterday in the much publicised case of Tiffin v Chief Constable of Surrey dismissing all claims. Ben Uduje acted for the Chief Constable. Overweight policewoman quits the force ‘after being pressured to pass a bleep test’

26th July 2017 Read more

Employment Newsletter

Welcome to the latest roundup from our barristers at 42 Bedford Row Employment Practice, with the latest news and unique insights from our team over the last month or so. An employee is thinking of quitting? Whoever is involved write it all down! I link a good article here in the Independent, as to the

3rd July 2017 Read more

Nicholas Bidnell-Edwards proved that an NHS Bank Healthcare Assistant working on a zero hours’ contract had been an employee though she had no obligation to accept work offered to her

Nicholas succeeded in proving that a Bank Healthcare Assistant was an employee within the meaning of Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 even though the Tribunal Judge found that: i) the Healthcare Assistant was under no obligation to accept any offer of work, and was not guaranteed a minimum amount of work; ii)

10th April 2017 Read more

Chambers is proud to announce that 3 February 2017 saw the second annual 42 Bedford Row Disability Law Essay Prize take place at the University of Oxford

This year’s question concerned employment law and challenged students to think about how the law should be framed so as to ensure that persons with disabilities receive equal remuneration for work of equal value. Students and attendees were given the opportunity to question a panel consisting of Lord Justice Bean, Professor Alan Bogg of Oxford

23rd February 2017 Read more

Jude Shepherd delivers a webinar in partnership with Masterclass Training

Jude Shepherd delivers a webinar in partnership with Masterclass Training, looking at the causes of the gender pay gap and the steps being taken to close the gap by introducing mandatory gender pay gap reporting. The new Regulations have a target introduction date of 1 October 2016. Listen to the recording of the webinar to

25th July 2016 Read more

Unison (no 2) v Lord Chancellor and EHRC

This week Susan Chan of 42BR has appeared for the Lord Chancellor in the second judicial review challenge to the employment tribunal fees system brought by the union Unison. A year ago Susan successfully defended the tribunal fees scheme against Unison’s first challenge, which was backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

23rd October 2014 Read more

Haq -v- Audit Commission – Judgment

In a new equal pay decision Haq v Audit Commission the Court of Appeal upholds the Respondent’s “genuine material factor” defence based on a form of “pay protection ”. The policy entailed that on reorganisation, employees kept the higher pay level of their old jobs where the new and old jobs were in the same

7th December 2012 Read more