Daniel Brown analyses the case of Dr Sun v General Medical Council  EWHC 1515 (Admin), which examines the significance of a doctor’s mental health difficulties in the context of findings of dishonesty. The judgment discusses the law on time limits, and provides a helpful demonstration of how CPR 52.19 (applications to limit recoverable costs) may be applied in statutory appeals of this nature.
- Clerk Name: Russell Porter
- Clerk Telephone: 01865 793 736
- Clerk Email: [email protected]
Daniel is a specialist Employment and Discrimination barrister. He represents individuals, businesses and other organisations in Tribunal, Court and Professional Regulatory/Disciplinary proceedings. He is ranked as a 'Leading Junior' Employment barrister in London and the Midlands by Legal 500 and serves on the Employment Law Bar Association (ELBA) management committee.
Daniel has particular expertise in the healthcare sector, having advised and represented professionals including doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives as well as NHS Trusts, Regulators and Care Homes.
Add this expertise to your shortlist
Daniel has experience across the full spectrum of ET complaints but specialises in Equality Act 2010, whistleblowing and TUPE claims.
In the EAT, Daniel’s previous cases include appeals concerning: employment status, discrimination and victimisation, unfair dismissal, Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, costs, time limits and amendment, some examples of which are below.
Daniel has delivered training on topics including unfair dismissal and redundancy and, on behalf of ACAS, ‘TUPE in a day’ training to managers, company directors, HR professionals and others.
Daniel also has experience of defending employment claims in the civil courts, as well as representing both claimants and defendants in Goods and Services discrimination claims.
Daniel’s EAT cases include:
Field v Steve Pye and Co. (KL) Limited & Others  EAT 68
Represented the Appellant in an appeal brought on various grounds including a challenge to the ET’s failure to apply the burden of proof in s.136 Equality Act 2010 correctly. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the ET for a complete re-hearing before a different Judge.
Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Limited EA-2020-000123-BA
Represented the successful Respondent in an appeal brought by a company director and shareholder claiming to be an employee or worker of the Respondent company. The EAT upheld the ET’s conclusion that the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker.
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Dearing & Others UKEAT/0344/16/LA
Represented three Claimants in an appeal concerning the law on victimisation (section 27 Equality Act 2010). The appeal was brought by the Respondent against three successful claims. The EAT dismissed the appeal in respect of one of the claims and remitted the other two claims back to the same ET.
Beaumont v Costco Wholesale UK Ltd UKEAT/0080/15/DA
Represented the Claimant in an appeal against the ET’s judgment dismissing his unfair dismissal claim. The EAT allowed the appeal and ordered a fresh hearing of the unfair dismissal claim before a differently constituted ET.
Daniel has had the following employment law articles published:
Overview, Employment law (2015) 6 UK Supreme Court Yearbook 370
Overview: Employment law (2015) 5 UK Supreme Court Annual Review 318
Overview: Employment law (2014) 3(1) UK Supreme Court Review (Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law) 272
Add this expertise to your shortlist
Professional Regulatory/ Disciplinary proceedings
Daniel has advised and represented a wide range of healthcare professionals including doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives as well as NHS Trusts, Regulators and Care Homes in proceedings before the: General Medical Council/MPTS, General Dental Council, Health and Care Professions Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the British Psychoanalytic Council and others.
Daniel has experience of cases involving allegations of misconduct, lack of competence/deficient professional performance, ill-health and criminal convictions/cautions and has handled numerous serious, lengthy and complex cases involving: patient deaths, serious harm, dishonesty, CQC inspections, multiple parties and contested expert evidence. In addition to substantive hearings, Daniel has appeared in many interim order applications, reviews, restoration applications, registration appeals and fraudulent entry hearings.
Daniel’s recent work also includes advising a healthcare regulator regarding amendments to its Fitness to Practise Procedure.
Add this expertise to your shortlist
Daniel Brown is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Access (or Public Access) scheme.
Mental health considerations in dishonesty cases, time limits and costs26th Oct 2023
The importance of Reynolds in discrimination cases7th Jun 2023
Daniel Brown reviews the case of Alcedo Orange Ltd v Mrs G Ferridge-Gunn  EAT 78 in which the EAT allowed an appeal against a finding that an employee’s dismissal was because of her pregnancy (contrary s.18 Equality Act 2010) on the ground that the ET had not considered Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd  ICR 1010.
An end to technical early conciliation arguments which lack substantive merit?2nd May 2023
Daniel Brown analyses Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v Clark & Others  EWCA (Civ) 386 in which the Court of Appeal overruled E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall and Sterling v United Learning Trust and set out how arguments about non-compliance with Rules 10 to 12 of the ET Rules of Procedure, in relation to early conciliation, should be dealt with in future.
‘Racially motivated’ or ‘racist’, what’s the difference?30th Apr 2023
Daniel Brown reviews the case of Lambert-Simpson v HCPC  EWHC 481 (Admin), a case in which the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) had to decide if a registered psychologist had made racially motivated comments on social media, thus impairing their fitness to practise.
ET’s credibility findings unsafe due to misunderstanding of medical jargon24th Jun 2022
Daniel Brown analyses Mr A Rehman v DHL Services Ltd  EAT 90, a case which highlights the importance of making sure that technical terms are explained.
The employment status of a company director in Rainford v Dorset Aquatics10th Jan 2022
Daniel Brown reviews Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Limited (EA-2020-000123-BA), a case which demonstrates that the mere fact that a director has done work for and received payment from a company will not always be sufficient to establish a worker or employment relationship.
That was not put!2nd Nov 2021
Daniel Brown reviews P2CG Limited v Davis (Appeal No. EA-2019-000762-AT), a judgment that provides useful guidance as to the matters to be considered when an allegation is not put to a witness in court.
When is a belief not worthy of respect in a democratic society?7th Jul 2021
Daniel Brown analyses the landmark case of Forstater v CGD Europe & Others UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ, in which the London EAT found Maya Forstater's view of transgender people to be protected as a “philosophical belief” under the Equality Act.
Can an individual be a ‘worker’ if they are not obliged to accept any work at all?10th Jun 2021
Can an individual be a ‘worker’ if they are not obliged to accept any work at all?
Daniel Brown analyses the decision in Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville UKEAT/0258/20/RN(V), which puts the spotlight on the Uber judgment and its impact on determining employee/worker status, in this case for one of the numerous regulatory bodies that operate panels of individuals to determine allegations of professional misconduct.
Can a dismissal without any procedure be fair?8th Sep 2020
Can a dismissal without any procedure be fair?
Daniel Brown reviews Gallacher v Abellio Scotrail Limited, a relatively rare case in which the employer decided, prior to dismissal, that a procedure would serve no useful purpose and the ET agreed.
Post-termination Restrictive Covenants & Constructive Dismissal2nd Jun 2020
Post-termination Restrictive Covenants & Constructive Dismissal - Square Global Limited v Leonard  EWHC 1008 (QB)
Daniel Brown and Rebecca Farrell review court decision on Carluccio’s administration23rd Apr 2020
Following the recent decision of Re Debenhams Retail Ltd (In Administration)  EWHC 921 (Ch) which applied Re Carluccio’s Limited  EWHC 886 (Ch), 3PB’s specialist Employment and Commercial Barristers Daniel Brown and Rebecca Farrell join forces to review the Carluccio’s decision.
Employment Law Case Summaries7th Apr 2020
EAT Case Summaries by Daniel Brown and Naomi Webber.
Is a belief that there are only two sexes and that it is impossible to change sex a belief protected by the Equality Act 2010?6th Jan 2020
Is a belief that there are only two sexes and that it is impossible to change sex a belief protected by the Equality Act 2010? - Daniel Brown analyses Forstater v CGD Europe & Others
Forbes v LHR Airport Limited UKEAT/0174/18/DA: Offensive image shared on Facebook not ‘in the course of employment’ (s.109 Equality Act 2010)2nd Aug 2019
Forbes v LHR Airport Limited UKEAT/0174/18/DA: Offensive image shared on Facebook not ‘in the course of employment’ (s.109 Equality Act 2010) - An analysis by Daniel Brown.
Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd  UKSC 32: The Supreme Court gives its view on restrictive covenants1st Aug 2019
Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd  UKSC 32: The Supreme Court gives its view on restrictive covenants - an analysis by Daniel Brown
Series of deductions: a new chapter?1st Jul 2019
Series of deductions: a new chapter? Daniel Brown analyses Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland & Northern Ireland Policing Board v Agnew & Others  NICA 32
Injury to feelings and the need to focus on the particular Claimant7th Jun 2019
Injury to feelings and the need to focus on the particular Claimant: Daniel Brown analyses Base Childrenswear Limited v Otshudi UKEAT/0267/18/JOJ
Daniel Brown has a strong employment practice in areas including whistle-blowing and race discrimination claims. He is experienced in matters concerning historic allegations.
Strengths: “Daniel is an excellent barrister, who is engaging and has a strong rapport with clients.”
“He is always a safe, cost-effective option for counsel and a strong addition to any case.”
“Daniel is an excellent barrister, who is engaging and has a strong rapport with clients.”
“Dan is exceptional for his year of call and operates well beyond that. He is always a safe, cost-effective option for counsel and a strong addition to any case.”
“Daniel is very good with clients. He puts witnesses at ease, and explains things easily. Daniel is also an articulate and bright person whom you want on your side.”
Chambers UK 2024/Employment/Midlands Bar
'A junior who is impressively articulate and dynamic in his advocacy.'
Legal 500 2024/Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Law/Leading Juniors/London Bar
‘Daniel's advocacy style is confident and persuasive.’
Legal 500 2024/Employment/Leading Juniors/West Midlands Circuit
'A confident and assured junior who provides pragmatic advice.'
Legal 500 2024/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar
'Daniel has a great analytical mind, and his real strength is assessing papers in detail at pace. He practices beyond his year of call.’
Legal 500 2023/Employment/Leading Juniors/West Midlands Circuit
‘Daniel was excellent. He engaged well with the client and provided a superb strategy to a difficult claim.’
Legal 500 2023/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar
‘Great manner with clients and very good at giving clear and thorough explanations and reasoning. Extremely helpful and genuinely interested in the progress of matters and in achieving good outcomes for clients.’
Legal 500 2022/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar
‘Daniel puts witnesses, including those with disabilities, at their ease and client feedback is that he is a sound advocate.'
Legal 500 2022/Employment/Leading Juniors/Midlands Circuit