Supreme Court

Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd (Court of Appeal [2025] EWCA Civ 1466; Supreme Court UKSC/2026/0005). When an employee says they were sacked for blowing the whistle, who should pay: the company, or the individual managers who took the decision? Since a 2018 Court of Appeal case called Osipov, a dismissed whistleblower has been able to sue not only the employer but the managers, HR professionals, directors or owners personally, as "co-workers", for the detriment of dismissing them, and to recover compensation for injury to feelings from them out of their own pockets. That exposure follows a manager long after they have left the business. Amit was being approached more and more often by senior managers and HR professionals who were being sued personally for carrying out decisions taken on their employer's behalf. He took the view that this was unfair and that Parliament had never intended it: unfair dismissal claims were meant to be brought against the employer, with the detriment route reserved for other kinds of mistreatment. Acting for the employer, Wicked Vision, he took the point to the Court of Appeal. The Court agreed with the argument, but held that it was bound by Osipov, said in terms that it would have decided the other way if it had been free to do so, and said that only the Supreme Court or Parliament could resolve the conflict. The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 21 May 2026, with the whistleblowing charity Protect intervening. Judgment is awaited. Because of the case's importance to employers, managers and HR professionals across the country, the appeal is being funded externally. In legal terms: whether section 47B(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 bars a detriment claim against a co-worker, and against the employer vicariously, where the detriment is the dismissal itself. Judgment: Court of Appeal. Commentary: Protect, Old Square Chambers, Littleton Chambers, Personnel Today, Freeths. The firm's own account of the arguments is here.

Court of Appeal

Phipps v Priory Education Services Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 652. Amit argued that a tribunal should be able to look again at a claim that had previously been lost because the previous representative had let their client down. For nearly thirty years, under a case called Lindsay, this was not allowed and clients were told to sue their advisers instead. Ms Phipps's claim had been struck out and she then approached us to take over. The employment tribunal found the previous firm's representative entirely to blame and ordered it to pay wasted costs, yet still refused to restore her claim because of Lindsay. Amit took the case to the Court of Appeal, which found that refusal "legally perverse", changed the law moving forward and told employment tribunals to treat the "sue your adviser" argument with scepticism. Through Lord Justice Bean, the court also recommended a change of procedure that tribunals have since adopted nationally. For an ordinary employee in the UK, this now means that if a solicitor, barrister or adviser's mistake has cost you your claim, Phipps allows you to continue with it within the employment tribunal instead of having to accept the loss and sue the adviser. Commentary: Ward Hadaway, 3PB, HCR Law.

Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1659. The first Covid-19 dismissal case to reach the Court of Appeal. Mr Rodgers stayed away from work during the first lockdown because he feared for his vulnerable children, and was dismissed. Although his own appeal failed on the facts, the Court of Appeal confirmed the principle that tribunals now rely on: it is immaterial that the same danger exists outside the workplace, so an employee who reasonably believes the workplace itself is seriously and imminently unsafe is protected if they stay away. In legal terms: section 100(1)(d) and (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, automatically unfair dismissal for health and safety reasons. Commentary: Lexology, Legal Island, Croner.

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Teixeira v Zaika Restaurant Ltd [2022] EAT 171. A restaurant employee won his unfair dismissal claim and was then awarded nothing, on the basis that he would have been made redundant anyway as a "pool of one". The EAT overturned that. A tribunal has to ask what this employer would actually have done if it had consulted properly. The decision is widely cited and protects employees of small businesses in redundancy situations, in particular where the "pool" is often a single person. Commentary: DAC Beachcroft, Morrish Solicitors, Peach Law.

Mileham v Zeus Limestone Ltd [2025] EAT 105. Established that if a company goes under, it would be unfair not to add the director who controlled it (as opposed to a co-worker) to the claim so that an award can be enforced. The EAT held that the tribunal had never weighed the obvious prejudice to a claimant left with a judgment he could not enforce, set the decision aside and sent the case back. Commentary: Litigated.

Barnett v H&H Gelato Ltd [2024] EAT 62. We disagreed with an employment tribunal making a deposit order in respect of a claim. This appeal provided guidance as to what employment tribunals must consider when making these orders.

Xu v Binary AI Ltd (Employment Appeal Tribunal, hearing awaited). A Chinese scientist turned down for an artificial intelligence research post on the basis of her nationality, because the role needed security clearance. The tribunal found no discrimination; the appeal has passed the EAT's sift stage and awaits a hearing. The case asks whether national security can ever justify rejecting someone because of where they come from. Covered by The Guardian and Personnel Today.

A barrister v his chambers. The employment tribunal accepted that a barrister had a serious depressive illness but said it was a different illness from his earlier depression because something different had triggered it, so he was not disabled. We argued that the tribunal had asked the wrong question: the test is whether the earlier condition was likely to recur, not whether two episodes had identical causes, and depression does not become a new illness because life has thrown up a new trigger. The outcome will have implications for the definition of disability in the employment tribunal, and will matter for anyone whose condition can seemingly get better over time and then flare up again.

Decided cases

Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd (Court of Appeal, now Supreme Court). The current leading case on whether a whistleblower who has been dismissed can also sue the individual managers involved, personally, for the "detriment" of being dismissed. The Court of Appeal agreed with our argument that Parliament kept the two routes separate but held itself bound by an earlier decision; the Supreme Court heard the appeal on 21 May 2026 and judgment is awaited. The full story is in the section above.

Shuayb and Birdi v Charlton House Medical Centre. Two junior receptionists at a London GP practice raised concerns about discrimination and patient safety and were dismissed, one on her return from sick leave, the other after bereavement leave. The tribunal found for them on every main issue and awarded £135,349.80 between them. The practice's attempt to appeal was rejected. In legal terms: automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, harassment, direct discrimination and victimisation.

Barnett v H&H Gelato Ltd [2024] EAT 62. Mr Barnett told the franchisor of the ice cream parlour where he worked that the owner was making offensive remarks about female staff, and asked for it to be kept confidential. A manager then made comments suggesting the complaint had got back to the owner. When he brought a claim, the tribunal ordered him to pay deposits to pursue parts of it. The EAT held that the tribunal had not explained itself properly and sent those orders back. In legal terms: whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal and deposit orders.

Siu v Sterling Lawyers Ltd (acting for the employer). A trainee solicitor reported her firm to the SRA and the police and was dismissed. Amit advised the firm, which won on every claim: the tribunal accepted that her reports had nothing to do with the dismissal. Reported by Roll On Friday, Legal Futures, Legal Cheek and the Law Gazette.

Cases we have settled

Reporting disrepair, then dismissed. A property manager with under two years' service told her company it was failing to keep its properties in repair, as the law required, and lost her job. We settled the claim a few weeks before the final hearing. In legal terms: whistleblowing dismissal, disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Interim relief. An employee of four months reported what looked like fraud by his managers and was dismissed for "performance and absences", the absences being linked to his complex PTSD. Amit applied for interim relief, an emergency order that ensures a whistleblower is still paid their salary until the case is heard, within days of the dismissal. The case settled.

A child's safety sling. A support worker employed by a council funded individual to help care for two disabled foster children pointed out that a child's handling sling was unsafe. She was shouted at, told to get out, and dismissed soon afterwards, having also been mocked for her PTSD. She then instructed Amit and the claim settled.

Taking over a stalled claim. A loader at a supermarket distribution depot had spoken up for colleagues about a lifting rule that was breached every day, and was then kept out of the yard for seven months for various reasons. He had issued the claim himself, and we then took over and settled for a significant sum.

A few current cases

A warehouse operator dismissed the day after reporting health and safety breaches. The stated reason was that he had worn headphones, something never raised with him before.

An emergency telecare responder, supplied to a London council through an agency, suspended and then dismissed after reporting that a colleague was bringing friends into the office and stealing from it.

A tour manager, engaged for more than two years as "self-employed", dismissed after complaining that elderly customers were being made to walk on the tours with their luggage during a severe heatwave. We are arguing that she was a worker, so that whistleblowing protection applies.

Settlement agreements

Most of Amit's whistleblowing work never reaches a tribunal and is dealt with by way of settlement agreements. Recent instructions have included solicitors who raised concerns about international money laundering at their firms; junior solicitors targeted by senior solicitors in a pattern of grooming, including the recreational use of ADHD medication; employees of hedge funds making protected disclosures about their employers; and council staff blowing the whistle on their authority's handling of cladding defects after the Grenfell Tower fire (whilst still preserving their right to give evidence at any inquiry).

Decided cases

Scarfe v Tunday t/a Nunneley House Dental Practice. A dental nurse dismissed because she was pregnant. The tribunal found for her on all six claims. Our forensic examination of the practice's paperwork showed that the documents it had produced were not created when the practice said they were, but were fabricated for the purpose of defending the claim; the tribunal agreed, and the practice's conduct was reflected in an award of aggravated damages on top of the awards for injury to feelings. We also obtained an order that the practice pay her legal costs on the indemnity basis, which is rare in the employment tribunal (see Costs, below). In legal terms: automatic unfair dismissal, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, direct sex discrimination, harassment, breach of contract and failure to provide written particulars.

Tubby v Hills Park Veterinary Group Ltd. A veterinary receptionist put up with eight years of sexual comments and unwanted touching from the practice owner. The tribunal upheld her claims and found that her eventual resignation was itself an act of harassment and sex discrimination. This was despite another employee attending the tribunal hearing to state that the acts had not taken place. Amanda tells her own story in the firm's short film, Amanda's story. Press: The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Mirror. In legal terms: harassment related to sex, sexual harassment, direct sex discrimination and constructive dismissal.

Shuayb and Birdi v Charlton House Medical Centre. Two receptionists, one aged 21 and in her first job, were called "bitches" and told that "white women are only good for sex". The tribunal awarded each of them £40,000 for injury to feelings as part of a £135,349.80 award. Two young receptionists were taking on the doctors who ran the practice they worked in, in multi party litigation. In legal terms: harassment related to sex and race, victimisation and automatic unfair dismissal.

A groom at a polo stud. A casual groom in discussions about a permanent job had the offer withdrawn and her work ended as soon as she said she was pregnant. A manager told her it was not fair for the business to have to pay for maternity and that she was no use with the horses while pregnant. The tribunal found pregnancy discrimination; the compensation stage is continuing.

Siu v Sterling Lawyers Ltd (assisted the employer). Pregnancy discrimination and whistleblowing claims by a trainee solicitor, defended successfully for a law firm (see Acting for employers).

Cases we have settled

BBC Studios Productions Ltd. An employee whose promised promotion was withdrawn once she announced her pregnancy, who was never given a pregnancy risk assessment and who found her progression blocked after maternity leave. Settled without any confidentiality clause.

Dropped from a promotion for being pregnant. A contractor at a global bank, supplied through an agency and paid through an umbrella company, applied for a permanent role while five months pregnant. She passed the technical interview and was then rejected once the bank learned of her pregnancy. The person who covered her maternity leave was kept on, and there was no work available when she was ready to return. We pursued all three companies, won against the bank's argument that she was out of time, and settled the case shortly before the final hearing for a substantial sum, four times the bank's first offer.

Contract not renewed the day after she announced her pregnancy. A senior gallery associate with good performance reviews told her employers at 20 weeks that she was pregnant. The next day she was told her contract would not be extended because of "financial restructuring". The gallery then hired a project manager for the very project it said it could not afford. Settled at four times the employer's opening figure.

Told by text to find another job. A photographer announced her pregnancy and received a text telling her to look for work elsewhere. She worked up to her due date, took a short maternity leave and came back to find two new staff in place and "not enough work". The employer said she was a freelancer with no rights. Settled on the morning of the first hearing.

"It's probably best you don't come back." A creative director at a marketing agency was told during maternity leave that she would not be getting her accounts back and would return to a lesser job. When she objected she was told it was probably best she didn't come back, and then received a letter accepting a resignation she had never given. The agency settled for a substantial amount.

Dismissed in her first week, two days after disclosing pregnancy. A barista dismissed after seven days with a letter saying that, had the café known she was pregnant when it hired her, it "may have reconsidered". Time limits were a problem because the client initially acted in person and contacted ACAS out of time. We came on record and made the appropriate arguments about extending time for her. The case eventually settled for a substantial figure.

Dismissed for reporting how male colleagues talked about women. An employee of a national charity reported colleagues' remarks about women and was dismissed shortly afterwards. The claim settled, shortly before the final hearing, for more than six times the first offer.

"Rated" by managers. A major Hollywood feature film shooting in Britain and on location in Europe had managers rating female staff on their looks and telling them what to wear. It was remarked when the crew's shirts arrived that "no one will notice as the men will just be looking at the women's tits". Following complaints, our client was told that her contract had ended because she was "rude", while a male colleague who had also made complaints was kept on. There was a time limit issue by the time the claim reached us but the appropriate arguments were made and it settled for a significant sum.

Passed over for a colleague's relative. A foreign exchange trader lost a promotion to a less qualified trader after announcing her pregnancy. On a keeping in touch day she was told to take her baby out of the office. After pushing on disclosure and subject access requests, the employer produced a transcript of managers describing her in crude terms and predicting she would "just go on maternity leave again". Settled for a significant sum.

Harassment claim against a senior employment barrister and part-time judge. Amit advised a woman on her complaint that a senior employment barrister at a leading set of chambers, who also sat as a part-time judge, had sexually harassed her. A leading silk was appointed to investigate and found that his conduct amounted to harassment, recommended that chambers refer the matter to the Bar Standards Board, and recommended conditions on his future recruitment. Amit then advised on the settlement that followed, for a very significant sum.

Television personalities. Amit has advised well known television personalities in relation to sex harassment, age and disability claims, some in relation to prominent members of the peerage. All have concluded by way of negotiated settlement agreements.

Cases we are running now

A housekeeper and PA to a company director who, the claim says, made coercive sexual advances and threatened to dismiss her unless she ended her pregnancy. We have already defeated the argument that, as a "personal domestic worker", she had no protection under the Equality Act.

An employee at an investment firm who asked for fewer office days after maternity leave, partly because she needed to express milk, and was refused for generic business reasons.

A client subjected to escalating harassment ending in a serious sexual assault by colleagues at a well known high street retailer. Her employer treated the assault as consensual, did not co-operate fully with the police, and later dismissed her for gross misconduct while she was pregnant.

A pharmacy employee whose flexible working requests after maternity leave were refused, who was told that her child's welfare was "not the company's problem", and whose sick pay went unpaid.

A dental nurse whose harassment by a colleague continued through her notice period and whose operations manager laughed when she reported it. The claim was days out of time when Amit took it on; it has survived a preliminary hearing and a costs application against the practice is listed.

A software developer made redundant on maternity leave as a "pool of one", whose request to return part-time to an alternative role was refused.

A long serving employee whose director sent her messages such as "love you baby" and repeatedly tried to take her on "business trips" abroad.

An NHS nurse who suffered several miscarriages and was accused by her manager of lying about them.

An employee of a railway company assaulted by a train manager who slapped her and repeatedly touched her. The company left him in post, described the incident as appearing "consensual" without putting that to her, and suggested she mediate with him.

A hotel employee who, after reporting sexist comments (including that she "could make more money on OnlyFans"), was handed a settlement agreement which she signed without legal advice. We are arguing that the settlement agreement is invalid and the claims should be allowed to proceed.

A retail employee made redundant after maternity leave, having missed a promotion offered to a colleague while she was away.

A client whose redundancy was decided while she was still within the protected period following a miscarriage, which we argue entitled her to be offered the merged role rather than put at risk.

Decided cases

Shuayb and Birdi v Charlton House Medical Centre. We acted for two junior receptionists at a GP practice in Tottenham, one of mixed Black African heritage and a Muslim, aged 21 and in her first job, the other of mixed race and still on probation. The allegations were that a colleague repeatedly used the word "n****r" in front of them while the practice manager laughed and egged him on. The practice manager asked one of them whether her father or her brother was in prison, told her that Arab and Asian people were the "pure" Muslims and that she "knew nothing", declared that "all women are bitches" and that "white women are only good for sex", and described the "easy, loose white women" he said approached him when he drove an Uber. He refused to call the women by their names, calling them "bitches" instead; when they objected, the doctor's answer was "but all women are bitches". The doctor called one of them "you people" and greeted his Asian Muslim staff every morning but not her. The same colleague said he "can't deal with Somalis", that "all Asians are lazy", that reception was "woman's work", and that women who dressed a certain way were "setting themselves up for r**e".

Both women were dismissed after raising concerns, one on her return from sick leave, the other after bereavement leave following her sister's death. The tribunal found for them on every main issue, upholding harassment related to race, sex and religion against the practice manager, race harassment against the doctor and race and sex harassment against the colleague, and awarded £135,349.80, including £40,000 each for injury to feelings in the top Vento band. In legal terms: harassment related to race, sex and religion, victimisation and automatic unfair dismissal.

Oliveira v Florence Beauty and Hair Salon and others. A Black Brazilian woman who worked at a hair and beauty salon for four months and spoke almost no English. When she asked the owner, in the staff WhatsApp group, to stop humiliating her staff, the owner turned on her in a stream of messages: she should go back to "the little life" she had in Brazil; she was "stupid and illiterate" and could not even write Portuguese; she was "garbage from the slums" who should "go back to taking drugs on the streets"; she looked like a demon; and, in a phrase that is a recognised racial insult in Brazil, she was "shit" that "always stinks". "I am blonde and pretty, and you? Take a good look at yourself in the mirror." The firm had the messages translated and the voice notes transcribed and built the claim on them. The employment tribunal found discrimination and awarded £39,322.30, including £25,000 for injury to feelings (of which £5,000 was aggravated damages), with an award for our legal costs on top. In legal terms: direct discrimination because of race and nationality.

Almousawi v Daitien Diamonds Ltd and Dai The Chu. We acted for an Iraqi Muslim woman. The allegations were that the owner told her he had sacked her predecessor because he hated "all blacks", stated that he was "racist to all religions" and made inappropriate comments related to her sex. When she complained he shouted that she was lying and could leave, and she did. The Central London Employment Tribunal found that she had been harassed because of her sex, race and religion and victimised for complaining. She was awarded compensation along with an order that the respondents pay her legal costs for the unreasonable way they had conducted the case. In legal terms: harassment related to race, religion and sex.

Xu v Binary AI Ltd. Dr Xu, a Chinese scientist, applied for an artificial intelligence research post at a British company whose work for the UK and US defence sectors required security clearance. The company's founder wrote that he had decided not to proceed with her application on the basis of her nationality. Race and nationality discrimination claims were brought; however, the employment tribunal found that rejecting candidates from "hostile states" for security cleared roles was not discrimination. We have taken the matter to appeal; it has passed the Employment Appeal Tribunal's first sift and awaits a final hearing. The case will decide whether national security can ever justify rejecting someone because of where they come from, and we have also resisted the argument that the case should be heard in a closed court. Covered by The Guardian and Personnel Today.

Cases we have settled

Mocked for his accent and "his boyfriend". A young store assistant on a three month Christmas contract at a national supermarket chain was the only mixed race member of his team. His section leader mocked an Indian accent in front of him and complained that the store was "so dangerously busy because of all the immigrants coming into our country", colleagues discussed his ethnic background behind his back, and he was teased daily that he and a male colleague were "boyfriends", although he is not gay. He had two panic attacks at work and never went back. The company's own grievance process upheld the homophobic comments, said the race comments could not be proved either way, and gave him no right of appeal. With under three months' service he had no unfair dismissal claim, so the case was built on harassment related to race and to perceived sexual orientation. The claim settled for a significant sum by way of a settlement agreement with an express carve-out so that he remained free to talk about what had happened with his therapist and GP. In legal terms: harassment related to race, and harassment related to perceived sexual orientation.

Monkey noises in a children's home. A residential care worker employed by a local authority was subjected to monkey noises by children in her care and was physically assaulted and injured. Every time she complained, her probation was extended. She had issued her own claim, which we then took on and re-pleaded. The case settled before trial. In legal terms: direct race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

Abused by three colleagues, employer did nothing. A security supervisor at a major outsourcing company was verbally abused by three colleagues because of her race, her sex and her sexual orientation, and her employer failed to act. Amit negotiated a settlement through ACAS in 2025 without proceedings being issued.

Cases we are running now

A Black woman working for a global pharmaceutical company who was described by managers as "aggressive", "hostile", "autocratic" and "emotional", which are racial stereotypes. She was told to "soften her style" and then dismissed after making repeated complaints of discrimination. The tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal found against her and we have now been instructed. Amit is seeking permission from the Court of Appeal to argue that describing a Black woman in the language of a recognised racial stereotype is itself evidence that shifts the burden of proof onto the employer, a point that would change how every discrimination case is decided in future employment tribunal claims.

An employee who discovered that her chief executive had asked an AI chatbot for advice on dismissing her. The prompts and outputs also involved racially stereotyped comments and remarks about her Christian faith. It is believed to be one of the first tribunal cases in which an employer's prompts to an AI chatbot are being relied on as evidence of what it was really trying to do, and it raises questions employment tribunals have not yet dealt with in respect of this technology.

A sales colleague of six and a half years at a national bed retailer, mocked for speaking Turkish, whose grievances were brushed aside and whose transfer to another store began with the manager telling her "I don't like drama".

Decided cases

Sewraj v Marks & Spencer plc. Mrs Sewraj was dying of cancer, having fluid drained from her lungs twice a week, when M&S dismissed her for "unreasonable levels of absence". She died three weeks later. Acting for her daughter, Amit established that M&S should have contacted the family, as its own policy required, and that dismissing a dying woman could not be justified. The tribunal also allowed the claim to proceed even though it was brought out of time.

Peterlevics v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd (awaiting written judgment). We acted for an employee with complex PTSD. The tribunal found that putting his mental health condition on a staff roster for colleagues to see was harassment, and that refusing to let a friend accompany him to welfare meetings was a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The second finding shows that a friend, not only a colleague or union representative, can be the appropriate support in some cases. The compensation hearing is to be listed.

Dr Hughes v Europe Arab Bank plc (awaiting written judgment). A semi-retired consultant awaiting a hip replacement was offered a short contract role and asked for his first interview to be held remotely. When he declined the bank's request to postpone his surgery, no further interview was offered. The claim succeeded at the final hearing, and the compensation hearing is awaited.

Dansoa v North London NHS Foundation Trust (awaiting written judgment). An NHS employee with a personality disorder and fibroids asked for one day a week working from home. The Trust did not support it. The employment tribunal found that the Trust had failed to make reasonable adjustments and extended the time limit for the earlier one. She remains in post, and the compensation hearing is listed. In legal terms: failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010.

Mileham v Zeus Limestone Ltd [2025] EAT 105. A disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claim kept alive against the director who controlled the company after the company itself went into liquidation.

Cases we have settled

A Premier League football club. A new member of the club told his manager on joining that he had temporal lobe epilepsy and explained the adjustments he needed. His probation was then extended because he repeated questions, a known symptom of his condition. Settled for nearly the full amount claimed within the schedule of loss, with a KC representing our client. In legal terms: direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and constructive dismissal.

A global head with ADHD. A senior executive headhunted into a global role at a healthcare company told his manager about his ADHD and how it affected him. He was then criticised as "passive", the very word he had used to describe his symptoms, and no occupational health assessment was ever arranged. Settled on confidential terms for a very significant sum.

Refused a phased return after cancer. A supervisor of 18 years at a drinks producer recovered from non-Hodgkin lymphoma and asked to return to work. Occupational health recommended day shifts, four hours a day, building up over eight weeks. The employer refused every adjustment, offered and then withdrew a laboratory role, and dismissed him on grounds of ill health. Settled at more than ten times the employer's first offer.

Put on heavy lifting after a stroke. An HGV driver of eight years lost his lorry licence for a year after a stroke and asked to drive vans instead. He was put to work lifting furniture despite the weakness in his arm, and dismissed six days after saying he could not do it. Settled for a significant sum.

Dismissed for something she could disprove. A university employee with autism, dismissed for allegedly breaching the absence procedure, had documents showing she had followed it. Settled at nearly ten times the employer's first offer. In legal terms: unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Menopause. An employee of nine years dismissed while struggling with menopausal symptoms, with no thought given to adjustments. The employer then tried to hold her to an ACAS settlement agreement she had never agreed. Amit disputed the supposed agreement and settled the claim.

Redundancy after mental health absences. An office manager made redundant in a rushed process after absences linked to long standing mental health conditions, with the employer denying she was disabled at all. Amit took over from the client, who had been representing herself, and settled the case.

Adjustments never made. A supermarket worker with epilepsy, carpal tunnel syndrome and musculoskeletal conditions, moved to a new role after sickness absence. Occupational health recommended adjustments; none were made, and she was dismissed for absence. Settled for a significant sum.

A chair and comfortable shoes. A senior sales associate at a luxury fashion house with ankylosing spondylitis, a condition her employer knew about from her first day, spent her shifts standing. Her requests for a chair, suitable footwear and a move to made-to-order duties were never met. On an overwhelming day she resigned, immediately tried to withdraw her notice but was told to go. Settled for a significant sum.

Dismissed two hours after her return-to-work meeting. An employee with gastroparesis who had disclosed her condition on the day she accepted the job was asked to write a "business case" for a one hour reduction in her working day, never received the occupational health referral she had agreed to, and was dismissed two hours after a return-to-work interview, with no right of appeal. Settled.

Job offer withdrawn as "too high risk". An experienced emergency call handler with a neurological condition had a conditional job offer from an NHS ambulance trust withdrawn. Settled for a significant sum.

Cases we are running now

A barrister whose tribunal accepted that he had a serious depressive illness but said it was a different illness from his earlier depression because something different had triggered it, so he was not disabled. We argued that the tribunal had asked the wrong question: the test is whether the earlier condition was likely to recur, not whether two episodes had identical causes. The outcome will have implications for the definition of disability in the employment tribunal, and will matter for anyone whose condition can seemingly get better over time and then flare up again.

A department store employee diagnosed with cancer, dismissed on health grounds two days before the consultant's appointment at which he expected to be told when he could return. No occupational health report was obtained.

A bank worker in an NHS trust's equality and diversity department who was messaged about work by her head of department while in hospital for emergency surgery, and removed from the bank register when she asked for adjustments on her return.

An agency worker with functional neurological disorder who disclosed her condition to the agency and the client before starting, asked to work from home when she felt a seizure coming, was told to take sick leave instead, and had her assignment ended the day after the seizure. Claims against both companies.

Examples

Age and sex: BBC Studios Productions Ltd. Various claims settled without any confidentiality clause.

Religion. Derogatory remarks about the client's Christian faith form part of the AI chatbot case described under Race and nationality discrimination.

Trade union activities: a West End stage show. A performer in a long running production volunteered as the cast's employee representative and, in that role, supported colleagues' complaints, including a complaint of racist remarks. When contracts came up for renewal she alone was not invited back.

Perceived sexual orientation: mocked for his accent and "his boyfriend". A young store assistant on a Christmas contract at a national supermarket chain, teased daily that he and a male colleague were "boyfriends", although he is not gay, alongside race harassment. The case is described in full under Race and nationality discrimination.

Decided cases

Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1659. The leading case on dismissals for staying away from an unsafe workplace during Covid-19. Mr Rodgers, a laser cutter who had started work in June 2019, texted his manager at the end of March 2020 to say he had no alternative but to stay off work until the lockdown had eased: he had a son with sickle cell anaemia and a seven month old baby at home. A month later he was sent his P45. With less than two years' service his only route was to argue that he had been dismissed for leaving a workplace he reasonably believed to be in serious and imminent danger, which is automatically unfair however short the service. Although he lost on the facts, the Court of Appeal used the case to lay down the guidance everyone now relies on: a danger that exists in the community at large can also be a danger at work, so an employee who reasonably believes the workplace is seriously and imminently unsafe is protected.

Teixeira v Zaika Restaurant Ltd [2022] EAT 171. The "pool of one" redundancy case, described above: an unfairly dismissed employee cannot be sent away with nothing on the theory that he would have been made redundant anyway.

Phipps v Priory Education Services Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 652. A claim struck out because of a representative's failings, restored by the Court of Appeal.

Hotte v Feversham Education Trust. A member of staff at a multi-academy trust who was forced out after raising concerns. In legal terms: unfair constructive dismissal and victimisation.

Stoyanova v NYS Stratford Ltd t/a NYS Collection. Automatic unfair dismissal upheld against a retailer, with compensation awarded.

Tubby v Hills Park Veterinary Group Ltd. Constructive dismissal found to be an act of harassment and sex discrimination in itself. Covered by The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Mirror. Amanda tells her own story in this short film.

Cases we have settled

Beer cans in a shared van. A warehouse and delivery driver with more than ten years' service was dismissed on the spot after managers used a spare key to search his van during a break in his disciplinary meeting and found beer cans under the passenger seat. He was never breathalysed, and the van was shared with other drivers. The claim settled.

Dismissed for refusing extra hours. A part-time employee of two years was told in a restructure that she had to work more days. She could not, because of childcare, and was dismissed rather than made redundant. The case settled for a significant sum.

Sacked by P45 after cancer. A care worker with 16 years' service went off sick with cancer. Her sick pay ran out but she kept in touch. She was then sent her P45 in the post, with no meeting, no letter and no process; the employer later said it had issued it because of "limited space on the system". Settled at judicial mediation. In legal terms: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

Dismissed with no investigation for reporting sick. A warehouse worker due back from holiday fell ill and reported sick the day before. He was dismissed for breaching the sickness policy without any investigation.

One week's notice to keep him under two years. A branch manager at an estate agency whose wife had just been diagnosed with lung cancer went on sick leave with stress and was then dismissed on the ground of performance with one week's notice. His contract gave him six, which would have carried him past two years' service and unlocked the right to claim unfair dismissal. Amit argued the contractual notice counted, together with disability and associative discrimination.

Dismissed after nearly 30 years' service over a refund. A department store employee of nearly 30 years was dismissed for gross misconduct for returning items she had bought in order to benefit from a later price reduction. No written policy prohibited it. Amit pressed the absence of any rule and the disproportionate sanction.

Cases we are running now

A long serving employee bringing unfair dismissal and unpaid wages claims against a company run by her estranged husband, involving repeated sham "dismissals", forged employment documents and a wage kickback scheme, alongside criminal and family proceedings. Forensic work has already exposed meetings said to have taken place while she was demonstrably abroad.

A payroll manager who asked to work from home on Fridays after maternity leave, was refused without the statutory procedure being followed, and resigned.

An HGV driver dismissed for following his satnav and running out of driving hours, having recently asked for local work so that he could attend hospital tests for bowel cancer.

A head chef with no performance history who declined a move to another site, was put on a performance plan two days later, and was dismissed six weeks after that.

A home care worker assaulted several times by a client, sent back to the same client each time, and dismissed when she said she could not continue. The claim is for unfair dismissal, including that she was dismissed for refusing to go back into a situation she reasonably believed to be dangerous.

Costs orders obtained

Scarfe v Tunday t/a Nunneley House Dental Practice. A dental nurse dismissed because she was pregnant won on all six of her claims and was awarded £62,916.66. Employment Judge Price then ordered the practice to pay our client's legal costs on the indemnity basis, together with the costs of assessing them (costs judgment 1 April 2026). An order for costs on the indemnity basis means that any doubt about whether an item of cost was reasonable is resolved in our client's favour rather than the paying party's, so a far higher proportion of the real legal bill is recovered; tribunals reserve it for conduct well outside the norm. The amount is being assessed.

Oliveira v Florence Beauty and Hair Salon and others. Costs awarded on top of £39,322.30 compensation.

Phipps v Priory Education Services Ltd. The claim later restored by the Court of Appeal had been struck out because of the conduct of Ms Phipps's former representatives, and the employer then sought its costs from her personally. The tribunal accepted her evidence in full, found that she was blameless and that the representatives were "entirely" to blame, having misled it into postponing a hearing, and ordered the representatives, not Ms Phipps, to pay wasted costs. Those findings were the foundation of the successful appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Almousawi v Daitien Diamonds Ltd and Dai The Chu. Costs ordered against the respondents for the unreasonable way they conducted the proceedings, on top of the findings of harassment and victimisation.

Examples

A Premier League football club. A new member of the club told his manager on joining that he had temporal lobe epilepsy and explained the adjustments he needed. His probation was then extended because he repeated questions, a known symptom of his condition. Settled for nearly the full amount claimed within the schedule of loss, with a KC representing our client.

Harassment claim against a senior employment barrister and part-time judge. Amit advised a woman on her complaint that a senior employment barrister at a leading set of chambers, who also sat as a part-time judge, had sexually harassed her. A leading silk was appointed to investigate and found that his conduct amounted to harassment, recommended that chambers refer the matter to the Bar Standards Board, and recommended conditions on his future recruitment. Amit then advised on the settlement that followed, for a very significant sum.

Barristers against their own chambers. Amit is the solicitor barristers turn to for their own disputes with their chambers. In one current case the tribunal accepted that the barrister had a serious depressive illness but said it was a different illness from his earlier depression because something different had triggered it, so he was not disabled. The EAT has allowed the appeal through to a full hearing on whether the right question is simply whether the illness was likely to recur, a point that will have implications for the definition of disability in every employment tribunal.

Solicitors and law firm leaders. Amit advises solicitors at every level on their own employment problems: the managing partner of a national law firm on her redundancy settlement agreement; solicitors who have raised concerns about money laundering; junior solicitors subjected to grooming by senior colleagues. He regularly advises senior solicitors who want to leave to become partners at other firms on the non-compete, non-solicitation and non-dealing clauses in their contracts and partnership deeds: whether the restrictions are enforceable at all, how long they can be kept out of the market, what can be said to clients and colleagues before they go, and how to negotiate an earlier release or set the restriction off against garden leave so that the move can happen on time. On the other side, he defends law firms against claims (see Acting for employers).

Trade union activities: a West End stage show. A performer in a long running production volunteered as the cast's employee representative and, in that role, supported colleagues' complaints, including a complaint of racist remarks. When contracts came up for renewal she alone was not invited back.

Television personalities. Amit has advised well known television personalities in relation to sex harassment, age and disability claims, some in relation to prominent members of the peerage. All have concluded by way of negotiated settlement agreements.

A broadcast meteorologist. Advice to a meteorologist bringing a seven figure claim against her employer, in which being reinstated, rather than compensation, was her priority.

Ultra high net worth individuals. The firm has acted in claims against UHNW individuals, aristocrats and members of royal families abroad.

A Hollywood feature film. A major Hollywood feature film shooting in Britain and on location in Europe had managers rating female staff on their looks and telling them what to wear. Following complaints, our client was told that her contract had ended because she was "rude", while a male colleague who had also made complaints was kept on. There was a time limit issue by the time the claim reached us but the appropriate arguments were made and it settled for a significant sum.

Employer instructions

Wicked Vision Ltd. The employer in Rice v Wicked Vision, the whistleblowing case now before the Supreme Court, with funding support from Peninsula because of the case's importance to the entire business community, managers and HR professionals in the UK.

Sterling Lawyers Ltd. Advised on the defence of whistleblowing and pregnancy discrimination claims by a trainee solicitor who had involved the SRA and the police; widely reported in the legal press: Roll On Friday, Legal Futures, Legal Cheek and the Law Gazette.

The firm's employer clients also include businesses in construction, education, private healthcare and sports rehabilitation, and a local authority.

How the firm handles settlements

The firm runs a dedicated settlement agreement team alongside its litigation practice, supervised by Amit, which reviews, negotiates and signs off agreements for clients from junior staff to senior managers. In most cases the employer's contribution to legal fees covers the review.

Clients range up to the most senior professionals. Lawyers instruct Atkinson Rose for their own exits because the firm understands partnership structures, restrictive covenants, regulatory references and the reputational stakes of leaving a practice.

Recent exit negotiations

"Settlement or a performance plan." A medical adviser of seven and a half years at a global pharmaceutical company had twice complained about a new manager's bullying, had been vindicated by HR's own review of his emails, and had come back from stress related sick leave to find the agreed support still not in place. He was then given ten days to choose between six months' pay plus notice, or a performance improvement plan. The firm had the plan postponed, raised the point that he had objected to an advertisement which breached industry guidance, and negotiated the package up to nine months' pay plus notice, garden leave and an agreed handover, in under three weeks.

Out sooner and unencumbered. A head of technology on £135,000, offered voluntary redundancy of three months' notice and a month on top during a collective consultation, wanted to leave earlier and start work elsewhere. The firm negotiated an earlier release with notice paid in lieu, and the waiver of his six and twelve month post-employment restrictions.

Moving firm: senior solicitors and their restrictive covenants. Advice to several senior solicitors leaving to join other firms as partners on the covenants holding them back, and on how to handle the approach to the firm they were leaving, so that the new partnership could begin without litigation.

Executive assistant to the chairman of a £550m care home group. Offered one month's pay to leave after refusing to help engineer her own assistant's "redundancy", against a documented pattern of five female EAs leaving the chairman's office in four years. The firm advised on a counter-proposal combined with a formal grievance to the People Director and shareholders, framed around whistleblowing, breach of confidentiality (payroll had let slip that she was leaving) and sex discrimination, and timed against a pending sale of the business.

Three months' maternity leave, then a C grade. A director of research on £110,000 at a global technology company took only three months' maternity leave for fear of losing ground, and returned to a C grade delivered second-hand by a junior colleague, exclusion from strategic meetings, and notice that she alone was at risk of redundancy from a department she did not work in. A grievance was run alongside ACAS conciliation and a without prejudice negotiation for an exit on proper terms.

"Sign this or face a capability hearing." An employee of five years whose employer added a core duty to her role that her disability prevented her from performing, and then, against its own occupational health advice, offered her a choice between a one month settlement and a capability hearing.

Made redundant 47 days after a promotion was confirmed. A senior UX writer on £85,000 at a technology company was told on the day that his role was redundant, with the settlement agreement already signed by the employer and a one week deadline. No at-risk notice, no consultation, no vacancies offered, despite a year in a director level role and a promotion confirmed in person seven weeks earlier. Instructed to negotiate an enhanced package, a reference reflecting his real duties, and relief from a clause restricting his job search.

"Return to work or resign." An employee of nine years signed off with work related stress, whose employer refused the home working adjustment it allowed colleagues with physical disabilities, was offered a week's pay per year of service plus £5,000 to go. The firm found that the income protection insurer's psychologist report, on which the employer relied, left out two disclosures the client had covertly recorded making, which opened a challenge to both the insurance refusal and the exit terms.

Training costs and a 20 mile non-compete. A senior equine vet with her own practice, leaving after five years, faced a £5,000 training cost clawback and a 12 month, 20 mile non-compete. Fixed fee advice to reduce the repayment and free her to serve her own clients.

A secondment to Italy. A commodities trader of six and a half years asked for a second pair of eyes on a one page secondment agreement before accepting a posting to her employer's newly acquired Italian business. The firm's line by line review added protection against financial detriment on pay and tax, commitments on location, travel and holiday, the removal of a no-notice termination right, and a guaranteed supported return to the UK.

What clients can expect

A same week review, usually within the employer's contribution to legal fees, with a clear view on whether the money on the table reflects the strength of the underlying claims.

Negotiation of the figure where the merits justify it, supported by a costed schedule of loss and, where needed, a letter setting out the claims the employer would face.

Attention to the terms that matter after the money: agreed references and announcements; the wording of any confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, and whether they should be there at all; restrictive covenants; bonus, share and commission entitlements; the tax treatment of notice pay; and the client's freedom to take other work and to speak about their experience.

A refusal to sign a client up to a bad deal. Where an offer is inadequate, Amit will say so and set out the litigation route, including no win, no fee funding.

If you have been handed a settlement agreement, send it to us before you sign. The first review is usually covered by your employer's contribution to legal fees, and the agreement may be worth considerably more than you have been offered.