Susan has extensive experience of advising and representing claimants and respondents in all areas of employment law, particularly in discrimination and whistleblowing claims.  Her practice is conducted predominantly in employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Reported cases

• Mr Alastair Dobbie v Paula Felton ta Feltons Solicitors [2025] EAT 71: Susan was successful in defending this appeal from Mr Dobbie, the claimant solicitor who had sued the Respondent legal practice for which he worked under the common arrangement of a fee-share consultancy contract. The employment tribunal had rejected his claim for wages of 40% share of ALL fees paid by a particular client, even though other fee-sharing consultant solicitors had also been working for that client and billing 40% for their work.  On appeal, the EAT dismissed the claimant's ambitious interpretation of the consultancy contract, holding that he was only entitled to 40% share of fees for work that he had done personally. To do otherwise would give rise to "ludicrous" consequences.
• Truman v SPL Powerlines; Network Rail and Express Medicals Ltd [2024]: Susan acted for the Claimant Mr Truman in this disability discrimination case. He had worked all his life in the railway industry as a lift operation planner, but had a job offer withdrawn and a 5-year ban imposed, because he failed a drug test for a Sentinel card, this being an authorisation required to work in safety-critical rail industry roles, despite pre-declaring his cannabis-based prescribed medication to manage the pain from his genetic disability.  But the medical testers had not followed Network Rail's written policies on drug-based medications when it recorded the drug test outcome. The Claimant was unsuccessful at employment tribunal because the tribunal considered that the Sentinel card was a "competence standard" which legislation prevented from amounting to disability discrimination. However, the tribunal which declared the case "an exceptionally difficult and complex one to decide" clearly had misgivings about the outcome, indicating that it felt the Claimant had "suffered an injustice". The Claimant, represented by Susan, has lodged an appeal to the EAT, permission has been granted and the full appeal will be heard over 2 days in December 2025.
• Keep v First Great Western [2024] EAT: Susan acted for the claimant who had endured sexual harassment from a fellow employee and successfully obtained an extension of time on ‘just and equitable’ grounds from the employment tribunal, to bring her Equality Act 2010 claim over a year out of time. The employer appealed to EAT but Susan successfully defended the tribunal judge’s decision on all six grounds.  
• Carabott v London Borough of Newham [2023]: Susan, acting for the council, successfully applied to strike out all of the claimant’s unfair dismissal, trade union detriment and whistleblowing claims on first day of hearing as they were out of time, when it emerged that his dismissal letter had been emailed to him earlier than the posted letter had reached him, and he had had reasonable opportunity to read it.  
• Agbeze v Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust [2022] IRLR 115 EAT: whether zero hours worker is entitled to full pay when suspended during a disciplinary investigation;
• Dobbie v Felton [2021] IRLR 679 EAT: what is required to satisfy the required “public interest” element in a whistleblowing disclosure. On remittal from the EAT, Susan and her client were completely successful at the employment tribunal hearing, in showing that none of the alleged detriments were found to be due to the protected disclosures. 
• O'Connor v Jaguar Land Rover (27.1.20): Susan acted for successful Claimant who was found to have been automatically unfairly dismissed for walking off-site from the factory, despite his action being prompted by his reasonable belief that his health was in serious danger from unextracted car exhaust fumes on the factory line. 
• Fahim Afzal v Domino’s Pizza [2018] ICR 1652 EAT: Susan acted for the claimant in his successful appeal to the EAT: employer’s failure to give him an appeal in circumstances where the employer had believed his immigration leave had expired, made his dismissal potentially unfair.
• Witts v Wyre Forest School (13.3.17) EAT: Susan acted for a teaching assistant in his successful appeal to EAT against a tribunal’s decision dismissing his unfair dismissal claim. He had been dismissed for gross misconduct after a special needs pupil fell after attacking the appellant, but the tribunal had failed to take account that appellant was acting in self-defence.
• Unison v Lord Chancellor and Equality and Human Rights Commission [2013-2015] IRLR 226: Unison and ECHR’s challenge to legality of Fees Scheme introduced in Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal in July 2013. Susan was successful on every occasion that she represented the Lord Chancellor, either as sole counsel defending two separate 2013 and 2014 judicial review challenges in the Divisional Court, or when led in the Court of Appeal (by David Barr QC); 

1. Unison v Lord Chancellor and Equality and Human Rights Commission decision 1
2. Unison v Lord Chancellor and Equality and Human Rights Commission decision 2
3. Unison v Lord Chancellor and Equality and Human Rights Commission decision 3

• Jones v Judicial Appointments Commission [2014] EWHC 1680: Susan successfully defended the JAC when its refusal to appoint a judicial applicant on character grounds, because he had 7 current driving licence points, was challenged by the applicant in judicial review proceedings. 
• Sivanandan v Cole (2012): Susan successfully defended an employment judge in a 6-week long hearing against multiple discrimination claims brought by a lawyer who had appeared in front of him.