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.
Employment and discrimination
Daniel has broad experience of ET proceedings, including unfair dismissal, wages, breach of contract and whistleblowing claims. He has particular expertise in discrimination claims and is experienced in handling cases involving multiple Claimants and/or Respondents.
Daniel’s TUPE experience includes acting for employers, groups of employees and the Claimant in a case in which it was argued that the reason for dismissal was a TUPE transfer 10 years before the effective date of termination. He has also worked with ACAS to deliver ‘TUPE in a day’ training to managers, company directors, HR professionals and others.
In the EAT, Daniel’s previous cases include appeals concerning: discrimination and victimisation, unfair dismissal, Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, costs and amendment, some examples of which are below. Daniel’s appellate experience also includes drafting applications for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
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:
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Dearing & Others UKEAT/0344/16/LA
Daniel 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
Daniel 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.
Dr Rajaratnan v Care UK Clinical Services Ltd UKEAT/0435/14 & UKEAT/0076/15
Appeal involving various legal issues including indirect sex discrimination and costs.
Thomas v Samurai Incentives and Promotions Ltd UKEAT/0006/13/RN
Appeal concerning the principles governing applications to amend an ET1.
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
Can a dismissal without any procedure be fair?8th Sep 2020
Can a dismissal without any procedure be fair?
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
- LLB (Hons) University of Nottingham
- BPTC Nottingham Law School – Very Competent
- Shoosmiths’ Prize (2010) – awarded by the University of Nottingham for an outstanding contribution to the School of Law
- Employment Law Bar Association
- Employment Lawyers Association
- Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers
- Member of the British Fencing Disciplinary Panel
Daniel Brown is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme.More Information