Employment Update Seminar

Tuesday 30th April 2024

No5 Barristers’ Chambers

7 Savoy Court London

WC2R 0EX UpdateSeminar

Section 2 – 5 Amendment Applications Jessica Smeaton

Section 3 – 13

Restricted reporting orders redaction in the wake of Millicom Services Ltd v Clilfford and Frewer v Google

Anthony Korn

Section 4 – 23

Protected Religious and Philosophical Beliefs: how to defend against claims for discrimination

Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson

Section 5 – 27

Interactive Session

Mugni Islam-Choudhury

MembersList Employment

ToviewordownloadmembersCVspleasevisitNo5.com

ManjitSGillKC (Silk:2000Call:1982)

MohammedZamanKC (Silk:2009Call:1985)

AnthonyKorn (1978)

AndrewJMcGrath (1983)

IrvineMaccabe (1983)

NabilaMallick (1992)

NigelBrockley (1992)

RichardHignett (1995)

TimSheppard (1995)

MugniIslamChoudhury (1996)

CharlesCrow (1999)

CharlesPrice (1999)

ColinBanham (1999)

HelenBarney (1999)

JackFeeny (2005)

JessicaSmeaton (2008)

RussellHolland (2008)

CarolineJennings (2010)

AlexanderMellis (2013)

AndrewRhodes (2015)

Tom Perry (2016)

KawsarZaman (2018)

AliceBeech (2019)

SapandeepSinghMaini-Thompson (2021)

AfiyaAmesu (2022)

AssociateTenant Pupils

ChangezKhan (2008)

AlexanderBailey (2022)

Employment Update

30th April 2024

No5 Barristers’ Chambers, London

Programme

2 CPD

9:00 – 9:30 Registration

9:30 – 10:00 Amendment Applications

Jessica Smeaton, No5 Barristers’ Chambers

10:00 – 10:30

10:30 – 11:00

11:00 – 11:30

Restricted reporting orders redaction in the wake of Millicorn Service Ltd v Clifford and Frewer v Google

Anthony Korn, No5 Barristers’ Chambers

Break

Protected Religious and Philosophical Beliefs: how to defend against claims for discrimination

Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson, No5 Barristers’ Chambers

11:30 – 12:30 Interactive Session

Mugni Islam-Choudhury, No5 Barristers’ Chambers

Jessica Smeaton

Call: 2008

Jessica is very proactive, communicates well with clients and absorbs complex issues quickly. Legal

Jessica Smeaton specialises in employment and immigration and has a busy practice in the tribunals and appeal courts where she acts as both sole and junior counsel. She is praised for her ability to develop good relationships with witnesses and for her attention to detail.

Her employment practice focuses predominantly on public sector respondents and, in addition to court representation, Jessica advises employers on a day-to-day basis on complex employee relations.

Her immigration practice covers both publicly and privately-funded work. She has appeared as junior counsel on a number of significant matters in recent years, both at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Jessica is a member both of the Attorney General s panel of counsel, approved to conduct cases on behalf of Government departments, and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission s panel of counsel, appointed to support the commissioner s equality and human rights work through strategic litigation.

Jessica sits as a fee-paid Judge of the Employment Tribunal and the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).

Expertise

Employment

Jessica is an experienced and specialist employment practitioner. She regularly acts in lengthy, complex trials and is known for her representation of public authorities, particularly the NHS. She has an increasing appellate practice in the EAT and is often asked to advise on the merits of potential appeals.

In addition to court representation, Jessica has long-standing relationships with public sector clients (mainly local authorities) for whom she provides advice on all aspects of employment litigation and day-to-day employee relations, including redundancy processes, TUPE, longterm sickness absence and reasonable adjustments. She forms a good team with instructing solicitors and is often called upon for assistance in developing a clear strategy in complex matters.

Because she is also an immigration practitioner, Jessica is often instructed on matters involving an overlap between employment and immigration issues, including unfair dismissal and discrimination claims concerning the right to work in the UK. This is particularly so since the UK left the EU. She also provides training to employment lawyers on immigration issues that they are likely to encounter in their practice.

Awards Appointments

Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Fee-paid Judge of the Employment Tribunal

Panel counsel to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission

Attorney-General s panel of counsel (panel B)

Qualifications

European Master s in Human Rights and Democratisation

Bar Vocational Course

Bachelor of Laws

ApplicationstoAmend

Presentedby–JessicaSmeaton

Tuesday30thApril2024,No5Barristers’Chambers,London

Sources

TheEmploymentTribunalRulesof Procedure(rules2,29,30)

PresidentialGuidance

CaseLaw

Rule29–CaseManagementOrders

TheTribunalmayatanystageoftheproceedings,onitsowninitiativeor onapplication,makeacasemanagementorder.Subjecttorule30A(2) and(3)(a)theparticularpowersidentifiedinthefollowingrulesdonot restrictthatgeneralpower.Acasemanagementordermayvary,suspend orsetasideanearliercasemanagementorderwherethatisnecessaryin theinterestsofjustice,andinparticularwhereapartyaffectedbythe earlierorderdidnothaveareasonableopportunitytomake representationsbeforeitwasmade.

Rule30–ApplicationsforCaseManagementOrders

Anapplicationbyapartyforaparticularcasemanagementordermay bemadeeitheratahearingorpresentedinwritingtotheTribunal.

Whereapartyappliesinwriting,theyshallnotifytheotherpartiesthat anyobjectionstotheapplicationshouldbesenttotheTribunalassoon aspossible.

TheTribunalmaydealwithsuchanapplicationinwritingororderthatit bedealtwithatapreliminaryorfinalhearing.

Rule2–TheOverridingObjective

TheoverridingobjectiveoftheseRulesistoenableEmploymentTribunals todealwithcasesfairlyandjustly.Dealingwithacasefairlyandjustly includes,sofaraspracticable—

a)ensuringthatthepartiesareonanequalfooting;

b)dealingwithcasesinwayswhichareproportionatetothecomplexityand importanceoftheissues;

c)avoidingunnecessaryformalityandseekingflexibilityintheproceedings;

d)avoidingdelay,sofarascompatiblewithproperconsiderationoftheissues;and e)savingexpense.

ATribunalshallseektogiveeffecttotheoverridingobjectivein interpreting,orexercisinganypowergiventoitby,theseRules.The partiesandtheirrepresentativesshallassisttheTribunaltofurtherthe overridingobjectiveandinparticularshallco-operategenerallywitheach otherandwiththeTribunal.

PresidentialGuidance

GuidanceNote1ofthePresidentialGuidance onGeneralCaseManagement(lastupdated 22January2018)

TheTribunalmusthaveregardtothe PresidentialGuidanceinexercisingits discretionunderrule29

EssentiallyreplicatestheSelkentguidance

KeyAuthorities

CockingvSandhurst(Stationers)Ltd[1974]ICR650

SelkentBusCoLtdvMoore[1996]ICR836

AbercrombievAgaRangemasterLtd[2014]ICR209

VaughanvModality[2021]ICR535

ProcedureandPracticalIssues

ChandhokvTirkey[2015]ICR527–ET1isnotjustaninitialdocument

Applicationinwriting(althoughnotesituationforLIPs)

Identificationofclaims(ChaudhryvCerberusSecurityandMonitoring ServicesLtd[2022]EAT172)

Amendingtheresponse

Addingoramendingparties

TimeLimits

TransportandGeneralWorkersUnionvSafewayStoresLtd UKEAT/0092/07

GalileevCommissionerofPoliceoftheMetropolis[2018]ICR634

PrakashvWolverhamptonCityCouncilEAT0140/06

OlatundevViewberLtd[2023]EAT158,para57

Re-labellingandFBPs

FoxtonsLtdvRuwielUKEAT/0056/08/DA(unreported)

ReutersLtdvColeUKUKEAT/0258/17/BA(unreported)

ContrastwiththePresidentialGuidance

ContrastwithapproachtoFBPs–AminvWincantonGroupLtd UKEAT/0508/10/DA

Balanceofhardship

“Abalancingexercisealwaysrequiresexpress considerationofbothsidesoftheledger,both quantitativelyandqualitatively.Itisnotmerelya questionofthenumberoffactors,butoftheir relativeandcumulativesignificanceintheoverall balanceofjustice”(Vaughan)

-Innearlyallcases,therewillbeprejudicetoboth partiesthatisessentiallyself-evident

-The“goldstandard”forrespondents:forensicprejudice.

-Relevanceofmerits–KumaricGreaterManchester MentalHealthNHSFoundationTrust[2022]EAT132

FinalThoughts

ApplicationstoAmend

Presentedby–JessicaSmeaton jsm@no5.com

Anthony Korn

Call: 1978

Anthony is a go-to for complex issues. He is technically very strong.

Chambers 2023

Expertise

Employment

Prior to joining No5, Anthony worked as a researcher in employment law at Industrial Relations Services, as a Senior Fee Earner at Paisner and Co, and at Dibb Lupton Broomhead as Head of Advocacy and External Training. More recently, he has practised at Barnards Inn Chambers and 199 Strand.

Anthony s practice ranges from the straightforward unfair dismissal case to complex TUPE, discrimination and equal pay issues. He has worked in the health and education sectors dealing particularly with disability discrimination and reasonable adjustment issues, TUPE, redundancy and age discrimination. He also specialises in cases involving TUPE transfers in the private sector and breach of contract claims involving bonuses.

Recent cases at both an Employment Tribunal and appellant level have included high value whistleblowing and equal pay claims (for both claimants and respondents). He is a leading expert on the quantification of Employment Tribunal claims. His practice extends to High Court injunctions to enforce restrictive covenants and confidentiality obligations. Anthony is licensed to undertake Public Access Work.

Anthony is known for his quick grasp of complex issues, the clarity of his advice, his thorough preparation of tribunal cases, his extensive knowledge of case law and his pro-active and tactical approach to litigation. He has been described by a wing member as one of the best advocates to have appeared in the Reading Tribunal . In another case, his cross examination was described as a master class .

Anthony also has considerable experience in representing employers who are faced with difficult litigants in person.

Anthony has lectured extensively in employment law to the Industrial Law Society, the Employment Lawyers Association and the Industrial Society on issues ranging from TUPE to sex discrimination to unfair dismissal. He currently lectures for CLT on TUPE, Discrimination and Redundancy.

RecentDevelopmentsonRestrictedReporting OrdersandRedactionofDocuments

PowertoOrderRestrictedReporting

Section10AoftheEmploymentTribunalsAct(Confidentialinformation)

Section11ofEmploymentTribunalsAct(Sexualmisconduct)

Section12oftheEmploymentTribunalsAct(disability)

Rule50ofTribunalRules

Rule50(1)

ETpoweratanystageoftheproceedingsinsofarasitconsidersit necessaryintheinterestsofjusticetoprotectconventionrightsofany personorinthecircumstancesidentifiedinSection10AoftheETA

Boundtotakeaccountoftheprincipleofopenjustice(Rule50(2))

Termsoforder(Rule50(3))includingidentifyingthepersonwhoseidentity istobeprotectedandspecifyingthelengthoftheorder(Pipenbrockv LondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience[2022]IRLR957)

Presentedby–AnthonyKorn 30thApril2024,No5Barristers’Chambers,London

FrewerVGoogleUkLtd[2022]IRLR472

RelevantBackground

Whistleblowingclaim

ClaimantallegedthatGoogleoperatedinananticompetitivemanner

Applicationforanonymizationofclientsandredactionofinformation

ApplicationmadeunderRule29(casemanagement)andRule50(privacy)

Tribunalorders

AnonymisationofallclientsindocumentsplacedbeforeET

Redactionofcommerciallysensitiveinformation

DocumentstobemadeavailabletoClaimantinunredactedform

EATRuling

Disclosurelimitedtorelevantdocuments

Documentswhichsupportoradverselyaffectaparty’scase

Disclosureisnecessaryforthefairdeterminationoftheissues

EATRulingContinued

Maybereasonabletoredactdocumentswhichcontainirrelevantinformation

Suchredactionmaybepermittedifdocumentsarecommerciallyconfidential

AnyapplicationforanOrderRule50musthaveregardtothe‘openjustice’ principle

Arule50Ordercanonlybemadeifitisnecessary

EATRulingContinued

AnOrderunderRule50willonlybemadeiftheinformationiscommercially confidential

Anorderwillnotbemadeiftheinformationismerelycommerciallysensitive

Ahighthresholdisrequiredforanyorderwhichderogatesfromtheprincipleof openjustice

EATOutcome

Appealallowed

Tribunalfailedtoidentifywhichruleitwasrelyingon

Orderregardinganonymizationofclientnamesamountedtoanerrorof law

Strongpublicinterestinknowingidentitiesofclients

Judgefailedtoconsiderpublicinterestandopenjusticeprinciple

MatterofAnonymityRemitted

Article6andArticle10rights

Theserequireda‘focussed’and‘detailed’consideration

Ordertoredactcommerciallysensitiveinformationcouldnotstand

Tribunalfailedtoconduct‘thenecessarystructuredanalysis’

MillicomServicesLtdVClifford[2023]IRLR295

FactualBackground

Whistleblowingclaim

RespondentprovidesdigitalservicesinSouthAmericaandAfrica

ClaimantwasemployedasaGlobalInvestigationsManager

Claimantdisclosedthatstaffofsubsidiaryhadtrackedmobilephoneofcustomerwho wasaprominentcitizeninaforeigncountryanddisclosedthefindingstoagovernment agency

Thecitizenwassubsequentlythevictimofaseriouscriminaloffence

TheProceedings

ClaimantbroughtproceedingsagainstMillicomand3formercolleagues

Millicomrequestedthatidentitieswereanonymisedincludingidentityof customer,detailsoftheattack,theallegedlinkbetweentheattackandthe Respondentanditsstaff

Risktosafetyofcustomerandemployeesmeantthatsuchanorderwasin theinterestsofjusticeandtoprotectrightsunderArticles2,3,5,6and8of theECHR.

Millicomarguedthatwithouttheordertherewasariskofreprisalsand physicalviolenceagainstMillicomemployees

ChiefExecutivesaidthatintheabsenceofanorderhewouldnotbe willingtogiveevidenceordefendproceedings

ETRuling

ETdeclinedtomakeanOrder.ItsaidthatECHRdidnotapplybecause thecountrieswereoutsidethejurisdictionandtherewasnoobjective evidencetosupporttheapplication.

Furtheranydutyofconfidencewasoutweighedbytheopenjustice principle

EATallowedappeal

CourtofAppealRuling:EATwasCorrecttoAllowAppeal

ET’sconclusionon‘interestofjustice’underRule50wasflawed.TheEJ hadnotconsideredthisseparatelyfromtheissueofconventionrights

Thestartingpointwastheprincipleofopenjusticebuttheprincipleof openjusticecontainskeyqualifications:theEJshouldhavestartedby askingwhetherthederogationssoughtwerejustifiedbythecommonlaw exceptiontoopenjustice.

Thefactthattherelevantemployees(andotherswhowerenotpartiesto theproceedings)workedoverseasoutsidetheECHRjurisdictionwasnot decisive.TheEJhadfailedtoconsiderthepositionatcommonlawor underRule50

The‘subjective’fearsoftheRespondent’sChiefExecutiveforhimselfand othersshouldnothavebeenrejectedandwererelevant

Therewasarealriskoflifeandlimbbeingthreatened

ETfailedtocarryoutthenecessarybalancingexercise

TheCourtobservedthatnotallwhistleblowingclaimsinvolveinformation thatisprotectedbythedutyofconfidenceandthosethatdowillinvolvea determinationtodeterminewhetheranyrestrictionsondisclosureare compatiblewithopenjustice

Thematterwasremittedforare-determinationbyadifferentlyconstituted ET

AnonymityApplicationRemitted

TheET’sapproachtotheissueofconfidentialitywasalsoflawed

Theissuewaswhetherarestrictionontheprincipleofopenjusticewas necessarytoprotectedanyinformationcommunicatedtoapersonin confidence

Relevantcircumstancesincludethenatureoftheinformationandthe natureoftherelationshipwhichgivesrisetoarelationshipofconfidence. Theissuewaswhetheritwasinthepublicinterestthatthedutyof confidenceshouldbebreached

RecentDevelopmentsonRestrictive ReportingOrdersandRedactionof Documents

Presentedby–AnthonyKorn ak@no5.com

Sapandeep Singh MainiThompson

Sapan practices in employment, discrimination, public law and professional discipline.

Sapan represents Claimants and Respondents in both statutory and commercial employment matters. He also conducts employmentrelated investigations. In public law, Sapan practices primarily in education, equality law and data protection.

Sapan maintains a keen academic interest in legal affairs and has written extensively for the UK Human Rights Blog, the New Law Journal and various other outlets.

Prior to joining the Bar, Sapan worked as a legal representative for the Cleaners and Allied Independent Workers Union (CAIWU) and as a researcher for the Uyghur Tribunal.

After graduating from Oxford University, he came top of his year in his Master s degree at the London School of Economics before obtaining first-class marks in all papers during his LLM at University College London, specialising in labour law, comparative public law and the conflict of laws in commercial disputes.

Sapan is a Governing Trustee of the charity Royal Star & Garter.

Expertise

Employment

Sapan represents both Claimants and Respondents in the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and the High Court. He has worked with clients across multiple sectors including health & social care, higher education, financial services, retail, local and central government.

His experience includes:

Successfully acting for an employee in an EAT appeal concerning an employer s obligations of consultation under Regulation 13 of TUPE;

Successfully representing an HR manager against a well-known food company in a 3-day claim for pregnancy & maternity discrimination & constructive unfair dismissal (Unfair Dismissal, Equality Act);

Appearing unled in the High Court for an accounting company in injunction proceedings, in relation to breach of confidence and copyright by an ex-employee (Injunctions, Data Protection; Restricted Reporting Orders);

Successfully defending a university in a 7-day claim brought by an academic for race discrimination & constructive unfair dismissal (Unfair Dismissal, Equality Act);

Successfully acting for a financial services company in a 7-day claim for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, victimisation and wrongful dismissal (Breach of Contract, Equality Act);

Successfully defending a mental health care company in a 4-day claim for whistleblowing detriment, religious belief discrimination and unfair dismissal (Whistleblowing, Equality Act, Unfair Dismissal);

Representing a manufacturing company in a 4-day claim for unfair dismissal, successfully obtaining a Polkey reduction of over 50% owing to financial mismanagement by the Director (Unfair Dismissal, Breach of Contract);

Drafting the particulars of claim for a senior asset manager in a six-figure Equal Pay claim (Equal Pay);

Advising a law firm on the enforceability of non-compete clauses in a solicitor s contract of employment (Restrictive Covenants);

Representing a public sector claimant at a 2-day remedy hearing concerning complex issues of causation, divisibility and apportionment of psychiatric injury (obtaining over £50,000 in compensation) (Remedy, Causation, Remoteness);

Representing the Department for Work & Pensions in a 10-day claim for discrimination arising from disability, victimisation and unfair dismissal (led by Michael Paulin) (Unfair Dismissal, Equality Act).

Representing a higher education college in a 5-day claim for discrimination arising from disability & unfair dismissal (led by Mugni Islam-Choudhury) (Redundancy, Equality Act).

Sapan advises on liability and quantum and conducts judicial mediations. His advisory practice encompasses ancillary civil matters such as breach of contract and data protection claims. He is a member of the Government Legal Department s Junior Junior Panel and is regularly instructed to draft responses and to assist in employment proceedings.

In addition to court work, Sapan provides training and seminars to law firms on a range of employment and equality law matters. Sapan has presented on gender recognition and discrimination law at Mills & Reeve, Shoosmiths, Shakespeare Martineau, Bates Wells, Knights Plc, Freeths, Harbottle & Lewis and various other firms. His presentations have been described by solicitors variously as excellent , thoughtprovoking and very insightful .

His work on gender reassignment and the Equality Act was published by the New Law Journal in January 2024.

Discrimination

Sapan has been instructed by Claimants and Defendants to advise upon claims in the County Court concerning discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

His recent experience includes:

Advising a Claimant in a claim for disability discrimination against an unincorporated association concerning the denial of an application for club membership;

Advising a Claimant in a claim for disability discrimination against a higher education college concerning a failure to implement reasonable adjustments to a student s examination arrangements.

Investigations

Sapan undertakes investigations and inquiries for both private and public sector clients. Recent instructions include:

Investigating a whistleblowing complaint of discrimination arising from disability on behalf of a major legal advice charity (interviewing 8 witnesses);

Leading an employment grievance investigation into complaints of race discrimination and gross misconduct at a mediumsized London law firm (interviewing 6 witnesses).

Accreditations

Middle Temple: Colombos Public International Law Essay Prize (2021)

Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum: John RWD Jones QC Essay Prize (2021)

Geoffrey Nice Foundation Scholarship (2020)

Middle Temple: Queen Mother Scholarship (2019)

Middle Temple: Harmsworth Entrance Award (2019)

BPP University: Advocacy Scholarship (2019)

Winner of the Leicester University Medical Law Moot (2018)

LSE: Department of Government prize for Best Overall Performance (2017)

LSE: Department of Government prize for Best Dissertation (2017)

St John s College, Oxford: Casberd Scholarship (2014-2016)

Appointments

Junior Junior Counsel, Attorney General s Civil Panel Counsel Governor, Royal Star & Garter

Qualifications

2019: University College London, LLM in Labour Law, Conflict of Laws and Public Law (First Class, with Distinctions in all subjects)

2017: London School of Economics, MSc Comparative Politics (First Class, Ranked 1st of 70)

2016: University of Oxford, BA History and Politics

Mugni Islam-Choudhury

Call: 1996

Mugni is currently Head of the Employment Group at No5 Chambers.

Mugni has over 25 years experience as an employment law specialist. He started his career in a London chambers in 1996, moving to in-house employment advocacy roles in Bevan Brittan and then Eversheds before joining No5 in 2012.

His practice involves niche sectors such as NHS, charities, schools and financial services, acting mainly for large institutional employers. He enjoys dealing with the most complex employment claims involving TUPE, equal pay, discrimination and multi-claimant litigation and also injunction work in the High Court. He appears regularly in the ET, EAT, High Court and has appeared in the Court of Appeal.

He is regularly instructed on confidential and sensitive whistleblowing, grievance and disciplinary investigations, usually involving investigation of executive directors of large employers. He is known particularly for his strong cross examination style but also putting client care at the forefront of his practice.

He was appointed Deputy District Judge in 2019 and sits as judge in the County Court on civil matters.

Expertise

Employment

Mugni is an experienced employment law specialist who has conducted employment-related hearings in the ET, EAT and civil courts for over 25 years. Mugni is a firm believer in client care and takes time to understand the needs of the client.

He is a specialist in complex and/or technical areas of law in employment litigation and has particular interest and expertise in dealing with high value claims or complex matters in the field of TUPE, discrimination, equal pay, interim relief, whistleblowing, interim relief and/or where there is a High Court connection (e.g. injunctive relief involving confidentiality breaches or in doctors disciplinary hearings). He has appeared against or alongside leading employment silks.

Injunctions

Mugni s civil law practice is focussed on injunction work in the High Court, where he acts for employers and employees in cases involving restrictive covenants, wrongful dismissal, data theft, and unfair competition.

He has successfully applied for and defended applications/claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, interim relief and springboard injunctions, as well as defending proceedings for committal for breach.

Mugni also sits as a Deputy District Judge in the County Court.

Investigations

Mugni is instructed by a number of national law firms and large employers to conduct either independent or legally privileged investigations concerning conduct involving very senior employees or directors. Matters usually involve issues of discrimination, whistleblowing, safeguarding, fraud, gross misconduct, bullying and harassment.

Private Sector

Mugni appears regularly for a number of FTSE100 and FTSE250 clients that are household names. His wider practice also includes acting for airlines, aerospace and engineering, banks and professional services businesses such as accountancy and law firms.

He is also experienced in representing employers who wish to protect themselves from their departing employees trying to poach their business, and appears in the High Court on restrictive covenant injunction cases.

NHS/Health Sector

Mugni has built up an extensive knowledge over the last 20 years of the workings of the NHS/health sector, acting for a whole range of acute trusts, FTs, mental health trusts, and other health entities He has experience dealing with:

Complex whistleblowing claims this represents a large proportion of Mugni s ET work

Doctors disciplinaries (MHPS)

Agenda for Change issues

Professional misconduct of other healthcare staff and/or relating to Serious Untoward Incidents. TUPE issues arising from commissioning decisions.

Local Government & NDPBs

Mugni is familiar with the specific needs of NDPBs and local authority clients (particularly in respect of schools) and the complex legislative framework in which they operate. He has many years of experience in acting in discrimination or whistleblowing claims for such clients, but also has experience in acting in niche areas by providing:

Advice and representation in termination of employment of senior officers (e.g. Chief Executive or Finance Director) due to gross misconduct, under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/202).

Advice and representation on transfer of liabilities relating to staff transferring when a maintained school converts to academy status, under TUPE and/or the Academy Act 2010 (as amended) upon dissolution of the governing body.

Education Sector

Over the years, Mugni has developed expertise in dealing with cases in the education sector, acting for Universities, academics, FE Colleges and private schools.

ThankYouforAttending Feedback

Your feedback is important to us. We kindly ask you to take a few minutes to complete the following questionnaire by Wednesday the 22nd of May 2024. To complete the form, scan the QR Code. By completing this form you will be in with a chance to win an £50 gift card of your choice.