Pragmatic & proactive
We provide proactive pragmatic general day to day advice on all employment issues.
Practical & responsive
Our solicitors have all gained considerable experience working for major UK law firms. The fact that we are a niche practice allows us to respond flexibly, sympathetically and in a more cost effective way.
We are experienced in advising both partners and partnerships particularly in relation to retirement of partners or members. We seek to deal with such matters in a practical and sensitive way.
We advise our employer clients on all aspects of business related immigration to assist them with hiring, relocating and retaining staff who are subject to UK immigration control.
In Jeffery v the British Council, the EAT held that an employee working for the British Council in Bangladesh was able to bring claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. ... read more
In G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell, the EAT has considered the scope of an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee under the Equality Act 2010. ... read more
The Government has published its response to consultation on the tax treatment of termination payments. The stated aim is provide support to those who lose their jobs, to simplify the rules, provide certainty, fairness and limit abuse or manipulation. ... read more
The House of Commons Justice Committee has warned that those unfairly dismissed by their employers are being denied access to justice as a result of the introduction of ET fees. The Committee concluded that major changes are needed to restore access to the ET system, following a decline of almost 70 per cent in the number of cases brought, believing the majority of the decline to be attributable to the introduction of fees. ... read more
Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP v Bailey is the first EAT decision on section 111A of the ERA 1996, which introduced the concept of pre-termination negotiation (PTN) to provide greater flexibility for employers and employees to confidentially discuss termination arrangements. ... read more
In Achbita & anor v G4S Secure Solutions NV, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice expressed the opinion that G4S’ ban on wearing any religious, political or philosophical symbols was not directly discriminatory against a Muslim woman who was unable to wear her headscarf in the workplace. ... read more
The Supreme Court has held, in the cases of Taiwo v Olaigbe & another and Onu v Akwiwu & another, that the mistreatment of migrant workers as a result of their vulnerable immigration status did not amount to discrimination on the grounds of nationality contrary to the Equality Act 2010. ... read more
The EAT has recently held, in Carreras v United First Partners Research, that expecting or assuming that an employee will work late can amount to a “provision, criterion or practice” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. ... read more
A recent Court of Appeal decision has confirmed that the territorial jurisdiction test established in Lawson v Serco Ltd, must also be met under the Equality Act 2010. Further, the CA held that this test must be applied in an equally stringent manner. ... read more