Imogen Egan

Imogen has up to date experience of a broad range of employment work, in addition to the pro bono work undertaken at FRU. She has advised and represented clients in: unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, TUPE, holiday pay, and discrimination claims. Imogen takes on cases for both claimants and respondents and she regularly deals with multi-day claims. Imogen has also represented clients in judicial mediation and is available for advice or drafting work.

Through the Bar Pro Bono Unit, Imogen has represented Applicants in the EAT in Rule 3(10) and Appeal hearings without a leader. She also assisted Naomi Ling in the EAT case of Crawford v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd UKEAT/0316/16, which confirmed that compensatory rest breaks cannot be an amalgamation of different chunks of time that add up to 20 minutes (Network Rail is currently appealing and Imogen is due to assist in the Court of Appeal).

While a pupil, Imogen was supervised by Naomi Cunningham and was fortunate enough to observe some of the Asda equal pay litigation, exposing her to key issues in one of the landmark cases of this kind in recent years.

“Fantastic well done Imogen. I will definitely use her again. Happy to give her a quote for any Bio, I was very impressed.” (Solicitor)

Cases:

Orchard v London Borough of Camden 220153/2017

Instructed by Pattinson Brewer LLP to represent the Claimant. The Claimant contended that despite having two roles, he had one contract of employment with the Respondent and that by making one of the roles redundant (removing half of his hours) he was entitled to resign from the other and treat himself as dismissed. The Claimant was successful on this claim.

Manu v DRS Care Homes 3324290/2016

Instructed by Pattinson Brewer LLP to represent the Claimant in his unfair dismissal claim. The Claimant had been accused of assaulting a service user and was dismissed. The ET held that there was an inadequate investigation and that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent had recognised its obligations to service users but had overlooked its obligations to its employee.

Willoughby v Flexserve 33000093/2017

Instructed by Pattinson Brewer LLP to represent the Claimant at a one-day preliminary issue hearing to determine whether the Respondent or a third party ‘umbrella company’ (based outside the jurisdiction) was the Claimant’s employer. The ET held that the Respondent employed the Claimant and that his claim for unlawful deduction of wages could proceed against them.