Catherine Urquhart

Catherine appears for both claimants and respondents in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal, with clients including supermarkets, airlines, local authorities, schools and universities, hotels, private individuals, companies of all sizes, and charities. She undertakes all types of employment work, from advising on the merits of a claim to drafting documents, from attending preliminary hearings through to multi-day final hearings at tribunals around the country – and, since the coronavirus pandemic, by video link.

In particular, she has experience of ‘ordinary’ and automatically unfair dismissal; constructive dismissal; redundancy; whistleblowing; dismissal on the grounds of trade union membership or activities; discrimination based on sex, race, pregnancy and maternity, religion and belief, age, and disability, including hearings to determine disability status; disputes over employment status; holiday pay; strike out applications; and applications for costs. She regularly acts for clients in judicial mediations and is experienced in drafting and advising on settlement agreements, and drafting particulars of claim, grounds of response and grounds of appeal.

She has considerable experience of interim relief hearings, and has published a guide to bringing and defending interim relief claims here.

Her employment work has led her to be ranked in Legal 500, rising to Tier 4 in the 2023 edition.

Catherine feels strongly that there is little support for litigants bringing employment claims who do not have funding (such as through insurance or their trade union). Employment tribunals can be confusing places and employment law can be complex. So for the past four years, Catherine has regularly volunteered at the Employment Tribunal Litigant in Person Support Scheme (ELIPS) at Central London Employment Tribunal, which assists litigants who cannot afford representation.

Catherine also regularly writes articles, and presents seminars in-house at solicitors’ firms, on aspects of employment law. Recent topics include: employment law pitfalls when working from home; getting the best evidence from your witness; the ‘unambiguous impropriety’ rule; how to deal with covert recordings; and managing long-term sickness absence. 

She is a confident public speaker, and has helped to present the 42BR Annual Lecture in both 2021 and 2022. You can watch the 2022 Annual Lecture here.

Her recent employment work includes:

• Reverend J G Hargreaves v Evolve Housing + Support [2022 EAT 122], in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal clarified when time for instituting an appeal starts to run if the Employment Tribunal has sent out a corrected judgment. Full judgment here.
• Gavli and Ali v LHR Airports Ltd (UKEAT/0012/21/BA), which held that if a claimant seeks an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, but fails to specify which part of the Code has been breached, the employment tribunal judge should still consider whether there has been a breach and whether an uplift should be awarded.  Full judgment here.
• Z v Capita Business Services Limited, in which Catherine’s detailed analysis of the redundancy selection process led to a successful defence of this claim.
• O v Transport for London. Catherine defended the respondent from multiple claims of discrimination.
• Unnamed v Governing Body of the Bishop of Llandaff Church in Wales High School. The case involved allegations of sexual misconduct which were peripheral to the issues that the Tribunal had to determine, so this unfair dismissal hearing began with a complex ‘Rule 50’ application for a restricted reporting order.
• H v B Ltd. Catherine successfully defended the Respondent school from claims that it had dismissed a teacher because of his trade union membership or activities.
• T v Travelodge Hotels Limited. Catherine regularly represents Travelodge. A significant feature of this constructive unfair dismissal claim was the Claimant’s reliance on covert recordings, and the arguments about whether they should be allowed into evidence.
• H v Evolve Housing + Support and Anor. An unusual strike-out decision involving allegations of unambiguous impropriety, electoral malpractice, defamation and more. Catherine demonstrated that the claimant’s claim was scandalous, vexatious and unreasonable.
• L v London Underground Limited. A sickness absence dismissal claim in which Catherine successfully defended the Respondent and recovered all its costs.
• W v Print Inc & Design Ltd & Anor. Catherine successfully defended a claim brought on the basis of discrimination on the grounds that the claimant was pregnant.
• S v C Ltd. Catherine appeared for the Claimant in this seven-day trial at Southampton Employment Tribunal in which she succeeded on claims of discrimination and harassment on the grounds of sex and disability. The Respondent’s application for a reconsideration was also defeated.
• C v AMS Ltd, Leeds ET. A five-day hearing in which Catherine defended the Respondent, a legal services provider, from claims of race and disability discrimination. There was extensive consideration of reasonable adjustments concerning the Respondent’s sick leave policy.
• F v Industrial Dwellings Society 1885. Catherine acted successfully for the Respondent, a social housing provider, at this four-day hearing at Watford Employment Tribunal, defending claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
• P v Randox Health Checks Ltd. Catherine defeated leading counsel to win this six-day constructive dismissal claim.