News & Events
News & Events
Sapan Maini-Thompson successfully represented the Appellant, Ms C O’Brien in the EAT after reconsideration of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal findings. Ms C O’Brien was employed as a ward manager by Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust from 2009 until her dismissal in March 2021 following a disciplinary investigation. The Trust alleged that Ms O’Brien had failed to work her contracted hours and had on one occasion claimed overtime for hours not worked. After a lengthy investigation and disciplinary process, she was dismissed for misconduct. Ms O’Brien, who suffered from PTSD, anxiety, and depression, brought claims of disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments) and unfair dismissal before the Employment Tribunal (ET). The tribunal rejected most of her claims,…
News 14 Nov, 2025
Employment barrister, Courtney Step-Marsden successfully represented the Appellant in the EAT in Yoosefinejad v East Space Ltd [2025] EAT 150. The Appellant began working for the Respondent in April 2023 as Operations Director, under a written contract that set an eight-week notice period for termination by either party, except in cases of gross misconduct. The company dismissed the Appellant in June 2023, within his three-month probationary period, paying him only until the end of that month, believing that the Appellant was only owed one week’s notice because he was still within his probationary period. Mr Yoosefinejad brought a wrongful dismissal claim, seeking payment for his full contractual notice period of eight weeks. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claim. Although the…
News 11 Nov, 2025
Gus Baker and Jessica Franklin will today contend with their chambers colleagues Will Young and Chevan Ilangaratne, as members of Outer Temple Chambers’ Employment Law team represent both parties in the Court of Appeal in the EAT case of Abel Estate Agent Ltd & Ors v Elizabeth Reynolds: [2025] EAT 6. This appeal brings into the spotlight a number of questions which, among other things, relate to the correct statutory interpretation of s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996. This provision requires, save for limited exceptions, a Claimant to engage in ACAS Early Conciliation before lodging a claim in the Employment Tribunal. The appeal covers an important procedural point given the EAT judgment introduced a significant amount of uncertainty about the effect…
News 12 Jun, 2025
Outer Temple’s Martina Murphy was successful on behalf of the claimant in Ms Leeks v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The EAT’s judgment provides important clarification on whether a refusal to enter judicial mediation or assessment can in principle amount to unreasonable conduct which could result in an award of costs. On behalf of the Claimant, it was argued that the clear ‘direction of travel’ in the Civil Courts and Tribunal is increasingly to encourage alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The Respondent’s arguments included, that a distinction can been made between a mere refusal to engage in judicial mediation and the reasonableness of the decision to do so. Having reviewed some of the key decisions in the Civil Courts…
News 22 Aug, 2024
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has handed down judgment in the case of NSL v Zaluski, in which Lydia Seymour and Elizabeth Grace successfully acted for the Appellant. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has handed down a detailed judgment overturning an Employment Tribunal’s finding of indirect race discrimination in relation to an employer’s annual leave policy during the Covid pandemic. The EAT also overturned an award of aggravated damages but upheld a finding of harassment related to race. In NSL v Zaluski [2024] EAT 86, the employer adopted an annual leave policy during the pandemic which required employees to factor in any relevant period of quarantine as a result of the pandemic. If an employee exceeded the authorised period of leave, even…
News 25 Jun, 2024
Courtney Step-Marsden successful in EAT appeal regarding the liability of individually named respondents under Section 110 Equality Act 2010. Naming individual employees as respondents to employment tribunal proceedings is a common issue, particularly in circumstances where the employer is not seeking to run the defence as outlined in s,109(4) Equality Act 2010. However, the recent judgment of Baldwin v Cleves School reminds us that, on a correct construction of s.109 and s.110, an employment tribunal does not have discretion to find that the named respondents are not liable for their own acts of discrimination. The EAT has recently handed down judgment in Baldwin v Cleves School and ors [2024] EAT 66 in which Courtney Step-Marsden, instructed by Elizabeth McGlone and…
News 7 May, 2024
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has handed down judgment in Ms Elaina Cohen v Mr Khalid Mahmood MP in which the successful claimant was represented by Martina Murphy. The Claimant had been successful before the Employment Tribunal in her claim for unfair dismissal and one complaint of whistleblowing detriment. The claimant had made an error in the citation of the ACAS number on the ET1 and missed the primary time limit. The Tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented her claim in time. Mr Mahmood MP appealed against the decision extending time. Employment Appeal Tribunal Mr Mahmood MP’s appeal In dismissing Mr Mahmood MP’s appeal, the EAT confirmed that the real issue in such…
News 27 Nov, 2023
