Naomi Webber considers the first case relating to Covid-19 and s.100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to reach the Court of Appeal, Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting [2022]. The case determines the employers liability in relation to serious and imminent danger claims from an employee during the pandemic.
Clerk Details
- Clerk Name: Russell Porter
- Clerk Telephone: 01865 793 736
- Clerk Email: [email protected]
Employment and discrimination
Naomi has a thriving employment practice, acting for claimants and respondents in preliminary hearings, multi-day final hearings, and judicial mediation. She also regularly drafts pleadings and provides written advice.
Her practice covers a wide range of employment law. She has advised and acted in claims involving:
- Unfair dismissal (including automatic unfair dismissal and constructive unfair dismissal)
- All forms of discrimination (direct and indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment)
- Whistleblowing
- Equal pay
- Unlawful deduction from wages
- Annual leave/holiday pay
- Worker status
- Redundancy
- National Minimum Wage
- Breach of contract (in the Employment Tribunal and County Court)
Naomi has particular expertise in the field of holiday pay. She was junior counsel for the Respondent in Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21 (appeal to the Supreme Court, concerning holiday pay for part-year workers). She has since provided extensive training on the implications of the judgment, as well as on other aspects of the law of holiday pay.
Naomi’s background in university teaching means she is willing and able to provide training in a range of areas of employment law.
Prior to pupillage, Naomi worked as a judicial assistant in the Court of Appeal, where she worked on a number of ground-breaking employment cases, in areas including National Minimum Wage, whistleblowing, territorial jurisdiction, and harassment.
-
Articles -
COVID-19 dismissals: Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting [2022] EWCA Civ 1659
30th Jan 2023View Article -
Calculating holiday entitlement for part-year and irregular hours workers: reflections on the Government Consultation
1st Feb 2023View ArticleThe counsel team for Mrs Brazel in the much publicised Harpur Trust v Brazel case, Mathew Gullick KC, Lachlan Wilson and Naomi Webber reflect on the recent Government consultation paper looking at holiday pay for part-year workers.
-
Worker status, ‘services agreements’ and the need for an ‘irreducible minimum of obligations’
1st Apr 2022View ArticleNursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville [2022] EWCA Civ 229
Naomi Webber analyses the Court of Appeal's judgment in Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville [2022] EWCA Civ 229, which provides a useful clarification when assessing the worker status of an individual who provides work under an overarching or other service level agreement, and confirms that the concept of a ‘limb (b) worker’ is broader than may have previously been thought.
-
Pregnant then screwed? Treasury justified with its income support scheme
3rd Dec 2021View ArticleNaomi Webber analyses R (the Motherhood Plan & Anor) v Her Majesty's Treasury [2021] EWCA Civ 1703, 'in which the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by women who were disadvantaged by the Self Income Support Scheme. It did demonstrate, however, that care must be taken not to discriminate when creating schemes that rely on factors which may be affected by periods of maternity (and other) leave.
-
Competing rights in foster care
27th Oct 2021View ArticleNaomi Webber reviews R (Cornerstone) v Ofsted [2021] EWCA Civ 1390, a case considering whether a requirement for foster parents to be in heterosexual marriages on religious grounds was discriminatory.
-
Interim relief not incompatible
7th Jul 2021View ArticleNaomi Webber reviews Steer v Stormsure Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 887, a case which examines whether the lack of provision for interim relief in discrimination and victimisation claims under the Equality Act does not breach ECHR rules.
-
Foster carers: worker status under Art 11 ECHR
4th May 2021View ArticleNaomi Webber examines the Court of Appeal's decision in National Union of Professional Foster Carers v The Certification Officer [2021] EWCA Civ 548, the latest in a number of decisions to look at the unique position of foster carers, this time considering the ability to form trade unions, under Article 11 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) (the right to freedom of association).
-
Pregnant then screwed? R (On the application of Motherhood Plan & Anor) v HM Treasury & Anor [2021] EWHC 309 (Admin)
2nd Mar 2021View ArticleR (On the application of Motherhood Plan & Anor) v HM Treasury & Anor [2021] EWHC 309 (Admin)
Naomi Webber analyses the case of R (On the application of Motherhood Plan & Anor) v HM Treasury & Anor [2021] EWHC 309 (Admin). A case concerning direct discrimination.
-
On interim relief and incompatibility
11th Jan 2021View ArticleNaomi Webber analyses Steer v Stormsure Ltd UKEAT/0216/20/AT, a case which could well add another tool in the armoury for claimants bringing in claims for discriminatory dismissals.
-
Disability Discrimination the Employment Tribunal: lessons for education lawyers
21st Sep 2020View ArticleDisability Discrimination in the Employment Tribunal: lessons for education lawyers
Sarah Bowen and Naomi Webber consider two recent appellate decisions (Khorochilova v Euro Rep Limited UKEAT/0266/19/DA and Robinson v DWP [2020] EWCA Civ 859) in respect of the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) in relation to the protected characteristic of disability. Whilst the facts of the cases relate to the employment sector, the same definition of disability applies in the context of education. Accordingly, their principles are directly relevant and applicable to disability discrimination claims in education. -
Worker Status Sent Spinning - Case summary of Varnish v British Cycling
3rd Aug 2020View ArticleEmployment law barrister, Naomi Webber analyses the case of Varnish v British Cycling.
-
Marriage discrimination: Gould v St Johns Downshire Hill UKEAT/0002/20/BA
1st Jul 2020View Article3PB's employment law barrister Naomi Webber reviews the case of Gould v St Johns Downshire UKEAT/0002/20/BA.
-
Be wary of the ‘last straw’
2nd Jun 2020View ArticleBe wary of the ‘last straw’: Williams v Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School UKEAT/0108/19/LA
-
Is the law of vicarious liability still ‘on the move’? Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13
4th May 2020View ArticleIs the law of vicarious liability still ‘on the move’? Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13
The 126 claimants in this case were all employees of Barclays Bank who, at the start of their employment between the late 1960s and early 1980s, were required to undergo a medical examination. Examinations were carried out by Dr Bates (now deceased), a general practitioner who was not an employee of the Bank but engaged as an independent contractor to provide this service, and did so at his home. The Claimants alleged that they were sexually assaulted by Dr Bates while undergoing this examination and brought a group action against the Bank for compensation. A preliminary issue was whether Barclays could be vicariously liable for his actions.
At first instance, the High Court found that Barclays had been vicariously liable. The Court of Appeal agreed, applying the five-part test in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56, and Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.
Supreme Court Decision (Lady Hale) - the key issue was whether the relationship between Dr Bates and Barclays was ‘akin to employment’. The Supreme Court held unanimously that it was not.
-
Employment Law Case Summaries
7th Apr 2020View ArticleEAT Case Summaries by Daniel Brown and Naomi Webber.
-
Diplomatic immunity and leapfrog
7th Feb 2020View ArticleDiplomatic immunity and leapfrog: Naomi Webber analyses Basfar v Wong UKEAT/0223/19/BA
-
Ethical veganism: a philosophical belief
7th Feb 2020View ArticleEthical veganism: a philosophical belief. Naomi Webber analyses Casamitjana v The League Against Cruel Sports (ET case no. 3331129/2018).
-
Is a belief in the moral importance of copyright a ‘philosophical belief’?
8th Nov 2019View ArticleIs a belief in the moral importance of copyright a 'philosophical belief'? Naomi Webber analyses Gray v Mulberry [2019] EWCA Civ 1720
-
Shared parental leave – Discrimination against men?
7th Jun 2019View ArticleShared parental leave – Discrimination against men? Naomi Webber analyses Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd, Chief Constable of Leicestershire v Hextall [2019] EWCA Civ 900
-
-
Recommendations Naomi Webber is adept at representing both respondents and claimants in employment proceedings spanning unfair dismissal, wage disputes and discrimination claims. She has appeared in a Supreme Court appeal concerning holiday pay for part-year workers.
Strengths: "Naomi Webber's relatively junior call belies an incredibly capable, strong and diligent advocate."
"Naomi is able to get to the core of the issues involved in complex cases to achieve the desired result."Chambers UK 2024/Employment/South Easter Bar
Strengths: “Naomi was really commercial with what we needed and did it quickly, which was a large part of what allowed us to attack and ultimately settle.”
Chambers UK 2023/Employment/South Eastern Bar
'Naomi has the ability to explain fairly technical aspects of employment law clearly, thoroughly and without unnecessary jargon.'
Legal 500 2024/Employment/Rising stars/South Eastern Circuit‘Naomi is excellent – she is extremely thorough and capable. She is highly approachable and has excellent attention to detail. Her attendance notes are always comprehensive.’
Rising star Naomi Webber is ‘an incredibly capable, strong, and diligent barrister’ and successfully represented an employer in direct and indirect sex discrimination claims relating to breastfeeding and childcare.
Legal 500 2023/Employment/Rising stars/South Eastern Circuit
Related Articles
-
Welcome to our November 2023 employment and discrimination law newsletter, in which we celebrate more rankings in the latest Chambers and Partners edition and call for applications for talented employment law barristers to join our team. Edited by Charlotte Hadfield, our newsletter features analysis from Charlotte, Head of Group Craig Ludlow and Alex Leonhardt - covering the following cases: Omar v Epping Forest District Citizens Advice (EA-2021-000595-JOJ), Steel v Spencer Road LLP [2023] EWHC 2492 (Ch), ONEA v Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd [2023] EAT 125, and Virgin Active Ltd v Hughes [2023] EAT 130.
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
