Daniel Brown reviews the case of Alcedo Orange Ltd v Mrs G Ferridge-Gunn [2023] 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 [2015] ICR 1010.
Clerk Details
- Clerk Name: Russell Porter
- Clerk Telephone: 01865 793 736
- Clerk Email: [email protected]
Employment and discrimination
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.
EAT cases
Daniel’s EAT cases include:
Field v Steve Pye and Co. (KL) Limited & Others [2022] 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.
Articles
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
Daniel Brown is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Daniel for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within five working days of its request.
-
Articles -
The importance of Reynolds in discrimination cases
7th Jun 2023View Article -
An end to technical early conciliation arguments which lack substantive merit?
2nd May 2023View ArticleDaniel Brown analyses Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v Clark & Others [2023] 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.
-
ET’s credibility findings unsafe due to misunderstanding of medical jargon
24th Jun 2022View ArticleDaniel Brown analyses Mr A Rehman v DHL Services Ltd [2022] 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 Aquatics
10th Jan 2022View ArticleDaniel 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 2021View ArticleDaniel 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 2021View ArticleDaniel 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 2021View ArticleCan 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 2020View ArticleCan 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 Dismissal
2nd Jun 2020View ArticlePost-termination Restrictive Covenants & Constructive Dismissal - Square Global Limited v Leonard [2020] EWHC 1008 (QB)
-
Daniel Brown and Rebecca Farrell review court decision on Carluccio’s administration
23rd Apr 2020View ArticleFollowing the recent decision of Re Debenhams Retail Ltd (In Administration) [2020] EWHC 921 (Ch) which applied Re Carluccio’s Limited [2020] 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 Summaries
7th Apr 2020View ArticleEAT 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 2020View ArticleIs 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 2019View ArticleForbes 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 [2019] UKSC 32: The Supreme Court gives its view on restrictive covenants
1st Aug 2019View ArticleTillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32: The Supreme Court gives its view on restrictive covenants - an analysis by Daniel Brown
-
Series of deductions: a new chapter?
1st Jul 2019View ArticleSeries of deductions: a new chapter? Daniel Brown analyses Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland & Northern Ireland Policing Board v Agnew & Others [2019] NICA 32
-
Injury to feelings and the need to focus on the particular Claimant
7th Jun 2019View ArticleInjury to feelings and the need to focus on the particular Claimant: Daniel Brown analyses Base Childrenswear Limited v Otshudi UKEAT/0267/18/JOJ
-
-
Recommendations 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
Expand recommendations
Related Articles
-
Welcome to 3PB's Professional Discipline and Regulatory newsletter celebrating new rankings for our barristers in the latest Legal 500 publication. Edited by Daniel Brown, our newsletter has analysis from Sam Shurey on how to avoid erasure from the GDC register for non-compliance. Sunyana Sharma brings you news of the HCPC's updated standards of conduct, performance and ethics. Sunyana also considers the High Court's decision in Sudheer Shabir v. General Medical Council [2023] EWNH 1772 (Admin). Daniel Brown analyses Dr Sun v General Medical Council [2023] EWHC 1515 (Admin) concerned with mental health considerations in the context of findings of dishonesty.
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers congratulates its Employment and discrimination law team for achieving 3 new rankings in the Midlands, while retaining its Band 1 ranking in two Circuits (Western and South Eastern) in Chambers and Partners’ 2024 edition published today. The team increases its rankings to a total of 18 individual rankings, up from 15 last year, in London, Western and South Eastern, and adds the Midlands as a Circuit in which its expertise is recognised. Client...
Continue reading -
3PB’s Employment and Discrimination law team is celebrating 2 TOP TIER rankings – in the Western and South Eastern Circuits - in the Legal 500 2024 edition just published. The team now has 13 of its 23 juniors ranked in the publication, totalling 22 individual rankings across the South Eastern, Western, London and Midlands Circuits. The team welcomes its promotion to the top tier in Western and retains its top tier position in South Eastern....
Continue reading -
Welcome to the 50th edition of our employment and discrimination law newsletter, edited by Simon Tibbitts and featuring team news with contributions from head of group Craig Ludlow, Jo Laxton, Colin McDevitt, Stephen Wyeth and Alex Leonhardt.
Case analysis is provided by Simon Tibbitts, Katherine Anderson, Joseph England and Alex Leonhardt and covers the following cases: Mrs Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School (The Archbishop’s Council of the Church of England intervening) EA-2020-000896-JOJ; Phipps v Priory Education Services Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 652; Greasley-Adams v Royal Mail Group Limited [2023] EAT 86 and Mrs N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust: [2022] EAT 204.
Continue reading
