Katherine Anderson analyses Robinson v His Highness Sheikh Khalid Bin Saqr Al-Qasimi  EWCA Civ 862, a case which highlights the key principles to be applied where an employer raises a defence of illegality, a potential defence which is often considered by employers in disputes over employee status where tax and national insurance have not been paid on the basis that the claimant was an employee.
Employment and discrimination
Katherine is an experienced employment law specialist who has acted for and advised claimant and respondent employers in the private, public and not-for-profit sectors.
She offers particular expertise in relation to disability and other discrimination cases with a personal injury mental health aspect.
By way of example, recent cases include:
- A claim of alleged disability discrimination, relating to depression and stress at work, providing detailed advice in relation to case preparation
- Representation of a claimant manager in a high value claim for unfair dismissal and victimisation
- Representation of a respondent manager defending a race discrimination claim brought by the deceased’s executors with a high value personal injury aspect
- Representation of a respondent School Governing Body in relation to an unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee accused of lying about her qualifications
- Representation of a respondent nursery provider in relation to an unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee accused of sexual abuse of a child
- An alleged constructive “whistle-blowing” dismissal where the employee complained of a dangerous workplace
She has undertaken a number of successful judicial and private mediations as an Accredited Mediation Advocate.
In her employment practice she has a particular interest in the education sector and has acted in employment cases concerning staff at nurseries, schools and universities (see also Katherine’s Education Law profile).
Can a claimant who has not paid her taxes succeed in a claim for wrongful or unfair dismissal?7th Jul 2021
What is “conduct extending over a period” and how and when should that question be determined?8th Apr 2021
L v 1) X 2) Z & 3) E UKEAT/0080/20/RN
Employment law barrister Katherine Anderson reviews L v 1) X 2) Z & 3) E UKEAT/0080/20/RN and examines the principles considered by the EAT in determining whether there was “conduct extending over a period” for the purposes of section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
Can a Tribunal use the “but for” test to decide whether a claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability?3rd Aug 2020
Employment law barrister, Katherine Anderson analyses the case of Robinson v Department for Work and Pensions  EWCA Civ 859 (7th July 2020).
Attending a court to give evidence for the employer is not ‘‘work’’ for the purposes of the ‘furlough’ scheme3rd Jul 2020
3PB's employment law barrister Katherine Anderson reviews the case of Fottles v Bourne Leisure.
Disability discrimination claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments? – Rakova v London West Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT/0043/19/LA1st May 2020
Rakova v London North West Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT/0043/19/LA
Employees can often complain where they feel that their managers are not giving them the tools they need to do their jobs efficiently, effectively or productively. How does that situation relate to a disability discrimination claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments? This decision provides some guidance on the approach to be taken by the Tribunals in claims of disability discrimination by reason of a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – how does it fit with the existing law on lay-offs and short-time working?7th Apr 2020
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – how does it fit with the existing law on lay-offs and short-time working?
Long term disability benefits: it all depends on the contract3rd Mar 2020
Long term disability benefits: it all depends on the contract. Katherine Anderson on ICTS (UK) Limited v VISRAM  EWCA Civ 202
Reasonable adjustments – Is it relevant that the employee didn’t mention them?7th Feb 2020
Reasonable adjustments – Is it relevant that the employee didn’t mention them? Katherine Anderson analyses Shah v TIAA Ltd UKEAT/0180/19/BA, following her successful representation of the respondent employer in this appeal before the EAT.
Legal advice privilege8th Nov 2019
Legal advice privilege: Katherine Anderson analyses Curless v Shell International Ltd  EWCA Civ 1710
The implications of Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker UKEAT/0241/16/RN on employer liability for acts of victimisation13th Apr 2017
3PB Employment Barrister Katherine Anderson examines the implications of Peninsula v Baker on employer liability for acts of victimisation. Katherine Anderson examines if an employer can escape "scot-free" from liability for an act of victimisation if it is 'astute enough' to instruct an innocent third party – or employee - to carry it out.
‘Highly intelligent, thorough in her work and is a tenacious barrister.’
Legal 500 2021/Leading Individual – Education
A strong advocate who enjoys a varied caseload which covers employment and education law.
Strengths: "She is extremely thorough and detailed in her preparation and advice. She is meticulous in her attention to detail and excellent for complex cases."
Chambers UK 2021/Employment - Western Bar - Band 4
- Cambridge University, United Kingdom
- Harvard University, United States
- Postgraduate Diploma in Law at City University
- Bar Vocational Course at BPP School of Law (Outstanding)
- Inner Temple Exhibition
Professional qualifications & appointments
- Accredited Mediation Advocate
- Employment Law Bar Association (ELBA)
Katherine Anderson is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme.More Information