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.
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.
Members of the Employment Group, at all levels of seniority, regularly represent both claimants and respondents in employment discrimination claims.
We recognise that in Employment Tribunal work, where costs are rarely recoverable, it is important to be able to offer experienced counsel at a level that is proportionate to the value of the claim.
As such, many of our junior members have significant Employment Tribunal advocacy experience, both in fighting discrimination trials and dealing with preliminary issues (such as whether a claimant is or is not disabled within the statutory definition).
Our senior members are regularly appearing in longer or more complex discrimination Employment Tribunal trials and appeals to the EAT and the Court of Appeal.
We have considerable experience (on both sides of such litigation) in cases involving employment discrimination on the grounds of:
We provide expertise and commercial experience at all stages of such litigation, from preliminary pre-issue advice through to mediation (including Employment Tribunal judicial mediation, which we find is increasingly appropriate in substantial discrimination claims now) and to representation at trial and on appeal.
Here are some examples of our work:
Durrant v Chief Constable for Avon & Somerset - Tim Adkin for the appellant, 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 in a claim of race discrimination against a police force.
Jones v Tesco Ltd – Orlando Holloway represented Tesco in their successful defence of claims of Direct Sex Discrimination and Constructive Unfair Dismissal. The Claimant worked as a female lorry driver in a predominantly male environment and complained of a long history of less favourable treatment and harassment culminating in being given a disciplinary sanction for leaving her lorry by the side of the road at the end of her shift. At the end of a 5 day trial all claims were dismissed.
Emerton -v- Marcos Bar Ltd – Iris Ferber for the respondent. A Disability discrimination claim listed for 3 days, with preliminary question of whether Claimant was disabled. Iris Succeeded in getting the claim dismissed on day 1, on the basis that Claimant had failed to prove he was disabled.
Wieclawski v. London Underground Limited – Rebecca Thomas for the respondent. A Disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claim. Train driver dismissed following safety breach whilst suffering from an acute bereavement reaction. Won at first instance and successfully defended appeal in EAT. Appeal raised issues of knowledge of disability, reasonable adjustments and adequacy of Judge’s reasons.
Tiffin v Chief Constable of Surrey Benjamin Uduje was instructed on behalf of the Chief Constable in a 2 weeks multiple discrimination and highly contested claims, which attracted considerable national media attention.
EP v The Gym Limited - Stefan Liberadzki represented an Employment Tribunal claimant who successfully established “employee” status, despite the fact that the contract described him as “self-employed” and he received no pay under the arrangement. More information can be found here
Martin Khoshdel summarises the recent Supreme Court judgement on Vicarious Liability in Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Various Claimants
23rd April 2020 Read moreThe Employment Tribunal Judge (the “Tribunal”) chose to strike out the Claimant’s claims of Whistleblowing Detriment.
25th September 2019 Read more42 Bedford Row invites you to their 2019 Annual Employment Lecture on Thursday 3rd October 2019 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 Jeremias Adams-Prassl will deliver our 2019 Annual Lecture.
10th September 2019 Read moreSafia 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 moreMcNeil 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 moreJason Braier provides a summary from The Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey judgment.
24th June 2019 Read moreJason Braier of 42 Bedford Row highlights some gems from the Aston v Martlet Group judgment.
28th May 2019 Read moreEmployment Law: What is a disability? Ask the Expert
20th May 2019 Read more09.30am, Wednesday 12th June 2019
8th April 2019 Read moreBy Jason Braier
19th February 2019 Read moreWe are delighted to welcome Tim Welch to Chambers.
11th February 2019 Read moreChambers are thrilled to have 17 individual recommendations/rankings in the new Chambers & Partners 2019.
8th November 2018 Read moreChambers are thrilled to have 13 individual recommendations/rankings in the new Legal 500 guide.
30th October 2018 Read moreNew article by Rad Kohanzad on Saad v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust
3rd September 2018 Read moreRebecca Thomas’s straightforward guide to flexible working for Marie Claire UK.
30th August 2018 Read moreWelcome 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 moreIn Nicholson v. Royal Mail Group Ltd Case No: A2/2016/1002 the Appellant had sent all of the necessary documents to Fleetbank House, the building currently housing the EAT, prior to the expiry of the deadline.
16th July 2018 Read moreIn Thanki v. Asda Stores Limited Case No. 1801966/2016 the Claimant was a disabled man because of hypertension and depression. The Respondent required the Claimant to attend his workplace on a weekly basis as a form of keeping in touch day.
15th May 2018 Read moreNicholas attended the inaugural Oxford Disability Law and Policy Conference at Mansfield College, Oxford, which was held between 24 and 25 February 2018.
27th February 2018 Read moreWelcome 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 moreIn 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 moreTim 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. The Court considered the Presidential Guidance on injury to feelings.
20th November 2017 Read moreWelcome 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 moreAfter Mr Bidnell-Edwards had proved a case of maternity discrimination, the Employment Judge at South London Employment Tribunal made an injury to feelings award of £10,000.00, which then increased by more than 50% to £15,332.19 as a result of i) a 10% increase for the Simmons v. Castle award; ii) a 25% uplift for breaches
9th October 2017 Read moreTim 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 in a claim of race discrimination against a police force
25th September 2017 Read more42 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 moreWelcome 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 moreReading 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 moreWelcome 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 moreNicholas 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 moreThis 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 moreNicholas Bidnell-Edwards 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.
10th January 2017 Read moreJude 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 moreOur member Nick Singer was recently involved in an interesting and important EAT case, Suhail vs. Barking NHS TRUST and PELC (UKEAT/0536/13/RN reported on Lawtel).
7th July 2015 Read moreThis 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 moreSebastian Naughton successfully resisted an appeal at a full hearing before the Court of Appeal in a case identifying the limits of procedural irregularity in the employment tribunal. The appeal was advanced on the grounds of procedurally irregularity.
16th July 2014 Read moreJudgment was handed down on 23rd May 2014 in the first judicial review claim against the Judicial Appointments Commission to be heard by a court: Jones v Judicial Appointments Commission [2014] EWH 1680 (Admin). Susan Chan of 42BR acted as sole counsel for the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Mr Jones was represented by Jonathan Swift QC.
27th May 2014 Read moreIn 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
