Employment Archives - Page 2 of 7

15th July 2025 | PLP Employment Grandstand Seminar

Join our specialist barristers at the PLP Employment Grandstand Seminar, Calculating Justice - Employment Remedies Masterclass to be held at the Hilton, Leeds City on Tuesday 15th July 2025.  The price per delegate is £50.00 + VAT to include lunch, refreshments and networking drinks reception.  Registration is at 12:45, lunch and refreshments will be served from 13.00, with speakers starting at 14:00. Guests will then be welcome to join us for networking and a drinks reception following the talk.  Programme  12:45 - 13:00: Registration 13:00 - 14:00: Lunch 14:00 - 14:45: <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/david-reade-kc/">David Reade KC</a> - The interrelationship between claims in the Tribunal and the Civil Courts 14:45 - 15:30: <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/claire-millns/">Claire Millns</a> - From Distress to Damages: Injury to Feelings, Personal Injury, and Aggravated damages 15:30 - 15:45: Coffee break 15:45 - 16:30: <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/sophie-firth/">Sophie Firth</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/robert-dunn/">Robert Dunn</a> - From Verdict to Value: Practical Considerations for Remedy Hearingss 16:30 - 17:15: <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/andrew-sugarman/">Andrew Sugarman</a> - Pension Loss Demystified: Principles, Pitfalls and Practicalities. 17:15 - 17:45: Q&A with all speakers 17:45 - 19:00: Networking  If you would like to join us, please contact <a href="mailto:emma.frazer@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Emma Frazer</a> to reserve your place.

Interest Adds Up: Main v SpaDental Ltd [2024] EAT 200

Facts  The Appellant, a dentist, worked for the Respondent company, SpaDental Ltd, for several years. He claimed unpaid holiday pay on the basis that he was a ‘worker’ under section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”).  After litigating the issue from 2019 to 2022, it was established that he was indeed a worker for the purposes of section 230(3). A remedy hearing was listed. This case note is on the 2024 EAT hearing, which was an appeal concerning issues on remedy only.  The claim largely concerned holiday pay. The claim was made as one for unlawful deductions from wages under section 23 of the ERA.   Relevant Law  The main legal framework engaged was the Working Time Regulations 1998 (“WTR”).  Regulation 13 of the WTR sets out a worker’s entitlement to annual leave. This includes payment in lieu of untaken leave where the worker’s employment is terminated.  Regulation 16 deals with payment in respect of periods of leave.  Regulation 30 outlines remedy in the form of compensation. It gives an employment tribunal discretion to award an amount which is just and equitable – regulation 30(4).  Article 6 of the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC was also relevant. It does not impose a limit to the reimbursement of loss and damage sustained by a person, nor is there an exclusion of an award of interest to compensate for the loss sustained.   Issues  There were two issues to be considered:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Did the claim vest in the trustee in bankruptcy?</li>  <li>Was the Appellant entitled to interest on the holiday pay owed by the Respondent?</li> </ol>  The remaining issues were agreed. It was also agreed that EU law applied as the facts of the case occurred before the UK left the EU.    Focus is on the second ground of interest.   Submissions  On the second ground, the Appellant argued that interest was an essential component of compensation and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence applied. It was also submitted that policy reasons were a crucial consideration:  “Were it not so, employers would have a financial incentive for non-compliance with the WTR even if they might eventually be ordered to pay the holiday pay, and could gain a competitive advantage from non-compliance.”  at [75].  The Respondent argued that the principle of equivalence was irrelevant because the domestic provisions on interest in civil court cases are discretionary. The respondent accepted that the employment judge was entitled to consider the parties’ interactions, the passage of time and regulation 30.   Outcome  The EAT held that:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>The first issue was correctly decided at first instance – the Claimant’s claim brought against the Respondent to provide him with paid leave was a proprietary claim which vested in his trustee in bankruptcy.</li>  <li>The employment tribunal at first instance erred in its refusal to award any “interest-like” compensation.</li> </ol>  The interest in this case involved substantial figures. It added £42,082 on top of the original award of £83,573, calculated at 8% running from the mid-point of each leave year. The rate of interest was accepted as post-judgment interest.  EU law was not necessary to be considered and the principle of equivalence “does not add anything of significance to the present case” at [87].   Analysis on Interest Issue  This case is important for two main reasons:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>It clarifies (or perhaps expands) the discretion of the employment tribunal to award interest on compensation under the WTR.</li>  <li>It sets out clear factors that the employment tribunal should consider.</li> </ol>  Firstly, the employment tribunal does not have an express power to award interest accruing before judgment on compensation or other sums under the Working Time Regulations or Employment Rights Act. It is accepted that interest is granted for sex discrimination and equal pay awards following Marshall v Southampton and SW Hampshire AHA (No 2) [1994]. Here, the ECJ held that to not award interest would be contrary to Article 6 Equal Treatment Directive. Interest is now pursuant to the Industrial Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996. The 1996 Regulations apply to awards under the Equal Pay Act 1970, as well as awards resulting from successful sex, race and disability discrimination claims.  The judgment is significant because it may open the door to awards of interest on compensatory awards for other claims, like unfair dismissal. It was decided that the wording of Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations was wide enough to grant a compensatory award that includes interest or an “interest-like” payment. Therefore, it is possible that other tribunals will decide they have discretion to award interest in other cases too. Where the award is substantial or the time passed is significant, the interest can amount to a generous sum. It is therefore a crucial consideration in remedy hearings.  Secondly, Bourne J outlined 5 distinct factors at paragraph 62 to be considered when awarding interest in a Working Time Regulation case:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Regulation 30(4)</li>  <li>What is just and equitable</li>  <li>The nature of the company’s default</li>  <li>Any loss sustained by the Claimant</li>  <li>Significance of the sums involved</li> </ol>  Interest will not be awarded automatically following this case. It was not clear whether these are five strict criteria to be followed each and every time. It was also not established if all 5 factors are required for interest to be awarded.  Therefore, both parties should assess whether some, if any, factors are satisfied and assess this on a reasonable basis.  Marshall was the clear influence in this appeal. The Court in Marshall explained that “full compensation” for “loss and damage” includes the factor of reduction in value by effluxion of time. Bourne J in Main indicated at paragraph 86 that this “factor must be brought into account”. This is useful in practice in support of an argument that the 5 factors above are not exhaustive. In practice, parties should bear in mind the passage of time and how this will impact the final sum awarded. A common-sense approach is implicitly endorsed.  This case reminds practitioners to bear in mind interest on compensation in remedy hearings. Whether representing claimant or respondent, it may amount to a significant sum. The Tribunal is yet to establish any hard and fast rules, so this discretion and flexibility may be a useful advantage where relevant.  The full judgment can be found <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/676945103229e84d9bbde9f0/Mr_James_Main_v_SpaDental_Ltd_and_Timothy_Alexander_Close__In_His_Capacity_as_Trustee_in_Bankruptcy_of_Mr_Main___2024__EAT_200.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

Attorney General’s Regional Panel

Parklane Plowden are pleased to announce that three of our members have been appointed to the Attorney General’s Regional Panel.  <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/bronia-hartley/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bronia Hartley</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/richard-ryan/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Richard Ryan</a> have been appointed as Regional B Panel counsel from the 1st of March 2025 for a period of five years.  <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/may-martin/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May Martin</a> has been appointed as Regional C Panel counsel from the 1st of March 2025 for a period of five years.  The government relies on the Panels for advice and representation and seeks candidates of the highest quality. Competition for places is fierce.  We’d like to congratulate Bronia, Richard and May on their appointments.   If you would like to get in touch with our clerking team, you can do so via <a href="mailto:clerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">clerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a>.

Employment Law Update: Unreasonable Failure and Fire and Rehire Penalties

Today, on 20 January 2025, the first of the 2025 employment law reforms are coming into force. Penalties have been tightened for fire and rehire where there has been an unreasonable failure to follow the statutory Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement.  What is fire-and-rehire?  Most commonly, fire-and-rehire is where employers serve notice on staff to terminate their current contracts, then re-hire them immediately on new terms and conditions. Employers may need to use fire and rehire when making changes to the employment contract. They may try to agree a change to the contract with the employee first and the employee refuses. The employer would then use fire and rehire as a last resort to secure the changes made without having the employee’s agreement to vary the contract. It is a unilateral variation of employment contract. Notice is necessary for dismissal. Some employers treat fire-and-rehire as giving notice of the changes to the employment. However, unless there is an explicitly clear clause permitting fire and rehire, then the re-engagement under the new contract may create issues.  The main issue is potential unfair dismissal claims. The employee may refuse to be re-engaged on the new terms. Alternatively, the employee may accept re-engagement but claim unfair dismissal from their old contract, even if they are re-employed by the same employer – Hogg v Dover College [1990] ICR 39.  Other issues arise where 20 or more employees are involved in changes to their employment contracts without the employer consulting with trade unions or elected worker representatives. The employer will be in breach of s.188 TULRCA 1992 – GMB v Man Truck & Bus (UK) Ltd [2000] IRLR 636. A failure to comply with s.188 may require employers to make a protected award of 90 days’ pay to employees.  Implied terms that employers will not use fire-and-rehire may be found, depending on the facts of the case – USDAW v Tesco Stores Ltd [2024] UKSC 28. The implied term in USDAW v Tesco was that Tesco could not dismiss employees for the purpose of removing the right to retained pay. Retained pay was ‘an individual contractual entitlement’, agreed to be ‘permanent’, ‘for life’ and ‘guaranteed’. An injunction restrained Tesco from dismissing any Affected Employee for reasons related to the removal or diminution of retained pay, directly or indirectly. This was a significant consequence for Tesco, albeit on a specific set of circumstances.  What is the Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-engagement?  It is a formal code which will be considered by the Tribunal, often in unfair dismissal claims. A breach of the code will be admissible in evidence and shall be considered by the Tribunal where it is relevant (S.207 TULRCA 1992, effect of failure to comply with Code).  The code has 2 main provisions on fire and rehire:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>The tactic should only be used as a last resort</li>  <li>The procedural pre-requisites must be followed by employers first before using it.</li> </ol>  Employers should not threaten dismissal if that is not their intention, nor if they seek to coerce employees to sign new terms and conditions.  The necessary procedural requirements are to:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Consult for as long as reasonably possible</li>  <li>Contact ACAS at an early stage before raising a matter with employees</li>  <li>If employees don’t agree, consider feedback</li>  <li>Review changes to assess if necessary.</li> </ol>  The code can be found here: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dismissal-and-re-engagement-code-of-practice">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dismissal-and-re-engagement-code-of-practice</a>.     What are the new changes to the Code?  The Code came into force in July 2024, as a proposal from the former Conservative government. The new Labour government intend to outlaw fire-and-rehire.   The changes have been incited by <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/1272/contents/made">The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024</a>.  Article 2 of the Order includes section 189 (failure to follow consultation requirements) to the list of tribunal jurisdictions to which section 207A applies.  The new provisions do not outlaw the tactic but have made penalties harsher with a 25% uplift on protective awards where s.188 applies. The intention is to encourage dialogue between employers and employees to explore options before unilateral dismissal and re-hiring on new terms.  Penalties will be issued for unreasonable failure to follow the statutory Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement.  What is unreasonable failure?  The code is engaged as soon as the prospect of dismissal and re-engagement is raised. There is no distinct definition within the code, but it is likely to include the following actions:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Not engaging in open dialogue with employees or representatives</li>  <li>Not doing so in ample time</li>  <li>Not doing so in a transparent way</li>  <li>Not exploring alternatives before fire-and-rehire</li>  <li>Failure to follow collective consultation requirements under s.189 TULR(C)A 1992</li>  <li>No consideration to the number of employees concerned to determine collective redundancy obligations apply when seeking to change terms and conditions</li> </ul>  The Tribunal will assess ‘reasonableness’ by balancing the employee’s interests against the actions of the employer. It will likely be assessed in context.    However, it is not entirely clear what will constitute an unreasonable failure and it may cause potential problems for employees or employers attempting to prove a failure to comply with the code.   What are the penalties?  For an employer, the employment tribunal may increase any award it makes to the employee by no more than 25% where:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Section 207A of TULRCA applies</li>  <li>There is a relevant code of practice that applies</li>  <li>The employer has unreasonably failed to comply with it</li> </ul>  When only firing and rehiring one person, employees will only get the 25% increase. However, where more than 20 people are affected and the employer does not consult properly, the 90-day protective award may be ordered.  Employers may be ordered to pay the employee a protective award of up to 90 days’ gross pay and up to 25% of the same per affected employee where:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Section 188 of TULRCA applies</li>  <li>There is a relevant code of practice that applies</li>  <li>The employer has unreasonably failed to comply with it</li> </ul>  The tribunal has discretion to increase the protective award.  For an employee, their award will be reduced by up to 25% if the employee or their representatives have unreasonably failed to follow the Code of Practice.  Example:  Employee’s gross daily rate of pay is £100.  Employer breaches Code of Practice and s.188 applies, so the employee’s compensation will be £9000 (£100 x 90 days), as well as 25% of that £9000.  Outlook  While the lack of clarification brings a degree of uncertainty, this is the first change in employment law in 2025. The changes mark a turning point – employees are receiving greater protection.    This Order has a significant interplay with other government changes. The Employment Rights Bill proposes to bring more redundancy situations within the ambit of collective consultation by removing the concept of ‘establishment’. The proposed number of redundancies must be calculated on business wide level and not site-by-site if more than 20 redundancies are proposed. The protective awards may also be increased from 90 to 180 days, or higher.  Therefore, with this being the first of the 2025 employment law reforms from the Labour government, employers should take caution in their actions, check they are done in accordance with legislation, statutory codes of conducts and regulations and note the change of direction that legislation appears to be taking to protect employees’ interests.

May Martin Successfully Defends Disability Discrimination Claim in the Employment Tribunal

May Martin has successfully defended Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust against a claim for disability discrimination following a five-day hearing in the Newcastle Employment Tribunal.  The Claimant brought claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments and s.15 ‘discrimination because of something arising’. The issues in the case centred around the Trust’s proposed return-to-work plan for the Claimant.  The Claimant, who had been away from her substantive post as a midwife for a significant period, contended that the proposed plan was punitive and put her at a disadvantage because it required her to rotate around various midwifery departments.  The Trust contended that the return-to-work plan was supportive and was reasonable given, amongst other things, the period of absence from clinical duties and the need for the Trust to assure itself of the Claimant’s competence and safety.  The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claims. It found that the Claimant was not placed at a disadvantage by the proposed return-to-work plan. It also found that the Trust had acted proportionately in pursuance of its legitimate aims of (1) ensuring operational efficiency; (2) ensuring the needs of the service could be met; and (3) ensuring the health, safety, and welfare of its staff and patients.  May was instructed by Gabriella Jobling of Capsticks solicitors.

Parklane Plowden Chambers Appoints Senior Practice Director

Parklane Plowden Chambers has appointed Paul Clarke as senior practice director for civil and employment.  Paul's addition completes our new management structure. Paul is pictured above with (L) Senior Practice Director Stephen Render who heads our chancery and commercial and family teams, and (R) Martin Beanland, Head of Service & Finance Director.  Paul joins from Kings Chambers, where he clerked for almost 30 years and was most recently responsible for the employment, personal injury, clinical negligence, sports law and court of protection practices.  As senior practice director, Paul is working with the heads of the civil and employment teams alongside individual members to identify and implement business growth strategies. Paul’s wealth of experience will enhance the set’s clerking team and help them continue to deliver high levels of service and support to clients.  In its 2025 rankings, barristers’ directory, Chambers & Partners, placed Parklane Plowden as Band 1 across its chancery; clinical negligence; employment; and personal injury practice areas. Additionally, the set was ranked Band 2 for inquests and inquiries.  Commenting on his new appointment, Paul said: “I am delighted to be taking on this new role and joining such an established and prestigious set of chambers.  “We have an exceptional and well recognised team of barristers working closely with highly regarded and experienced support staff. This is a potent combination as we look to continue providing high level advice, advocacy and client care.  “The North Eastern circuit has a thriving legal market, and I am excited to play my part in PLP’s ongoing vision for growth.”  Formed in 2007 following the merger of Parklane Chambers in Leeds and Plowden Chambers in Newcastle, Parklane Plowden is home to 118 members.  Welcoming Paul to PLP, head of chambers, James Murphy, said: “Paul has extensive experience as a leading clerk, and we are pleased he is joining us as a senior practice director.  “At PLP, our civil and employment barristers have an established leading reputation and these practice areas represents a core growth opportunity for our set across the North Eastern Circuit.  “Having Paul on board will be instrumental in achieving this. We look forward to leveraging his leadership and management expertise to ensure high quality services are maintained for our clients as we go from strength to strength.”    Chambers & Partners also placed Parklane Plowden as Band 1, the highest ranking a chambers can achieve, across family and children and Band 2 for family: matrimonial finance.  The 2025 edition of legal directory The Legal 500 ranks Parklane Plowden Chambers as a tier one barristers’ set across five practice areas. These include chancery, probate and tax; clinical negligence; employment; family and children law and personal injury.  In addition, The Legal 500 recommends 79 of the set’s barristers across 11 practice areas.

Pupil Isabella Brunton shares her experience of her first week ‘on her feet’

Monday  My last day of first six. Whilst eagerly anticipating the week to come when my practising certificate kicked in the next day, I made my way to an employment noting brief for an internal ‘SOSR’ disciplinary hearing. As the only instructions pupils are permitted to accept in their first six, noting briefs are a great way to do your own work and meet new people. This instance even meant I was able to witness the meetings prior to a tribunal claim, which usually barristers would not be privy to, so it was an interesting experience.  Tuesday  The first papers in my name started to appear in my inbox. I got to work on employment merits assessments and infant quantum advice documents – having to get used to signing my papers with my own name! I got an early insight into the last minute nature of the profession when my case for the next day settled at 2pm and by 5pm I was receiving new instructions for 10am the next morning. The start of second six is a great time to attend outreach events, as I am experiencing junior practice myself for the first time. On Tuesday evening I joined my colleagues at a networking event for BPP at Newcastle University, where I spoke to a lot of ambitious aspiring barristers.  Wednesday  Following an early (and rainy) drive down to Middlesborough in the morning, I met my opponent and client in my first small claim RTA. On the papers I had not been optimistic about our prospects of defending the claim, but in cross-examination it became clear that there were inconsistencies in the claimant’s account, so I was pleased that the judge awarded a result of split liability. It was a nerve-racking but rewarding first case, and in the afternoon I went back to Chambers to switch my employment law brain on in advance of the next day.  Thursday  I spent the morning in our Leeds Chambers preparing for a mock employment tribunal run by Blacks Solicitors. Acting as counsel for the respondent two days into my second six in front of almost 100 professionals was a unique experience, but I thoroughly enjoyed cross-examining on the topical area of menopausal discrimination and luckily, Sophie Firth was a very fair judge.  Once again I took the opportunity to speak to aspiring barristers, this time at the BPP Leeds offices, where I sat on a panel together with three barristers from various Chambers, talking about life at the Bar. I enjoyed speaking to students about my experiences of the Bar course and pupillage applications.  Friday  The new age of virtual hearings meant that I was able to do my stage 3 telephone hearing from Chambers in the morning. I take great comfort in knowing my colleagues are only on the other side of the wall if I have any queries and thankfully, as my hearing was the first slot of the day, I was still left with plenty of time to work on papers and my cases for next week before enjoying a restful weekend.  I thoroughly enjoyed my first week ‘on my feet’, particularly beginning to develop my own style of cross-examination following six months of observing others. I look forward to building my practice and I am now receiving instructions in employment and civil matters. My pupil supervisors are Amy Rumble and Claire Millns.

Parklane Plowden Chambers ranked as a Band One barristers’ set across five practice areas in the Chambers & Partners 2025 rankings

Parklane Plowden Chambers has been ranked as a Band One set across five practice areas and a Band Two set across two practice areas in the Chambers & Partners 2025 rankings.  Chambers has been listed as Band One, the highest ranking a set can achieve, across the Chancery, Clinical Negligence, Employment, Family: Children and Personal Injury practice areas.  Parklane Plowden is the sole set to be ranked in Band One for both Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury on the North Eastern Circuit.  Additionally, the set has been ranked as a Band Two set for both Family: Matrimonial Finance and Inquests & Public Inquiries.  Individual members received 67 rankings in this year’s edition across: • Chancery • Clinical Negligence • Commercial Dispute Resolution • Employment • Family: Children • Family: Matrimonial Finance • Inquests & Public Inquiries • Personal Injury • Personal Injury: Industrial Disease • Professional Negligence • Real Estate Litigation

Isabella Brunton starts her second six and accepts instructions

Parklane Plowden is pleased to announce that Isabella Brunton has started her second six and is available to take instructions.  Isabella Brunton commenced her specialist civil law pupillage in April 2024 under the supervision of Claire Millns.  To instruct Isabella please contact: <a href="mailto:clerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">clerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a> or call us on 0113 228 5000.

Parklane Plowden Chambers ranked as a Top Tier barristers’ set across five practice areas in the Legal 500 2025 rankings

Parklane Plowden Chambers has been ranked as a Tier 1 set across five practice areas and a Tier 2 set across two practice areas in The Legal 500 2025 rankings.  Chambers has been listed as Tier 1, the highest ranking a set can achieve, across the chancery, probate and tax; clinical negligence; employment; family and children law and personal injury practice areas.  Parklane Plowden is also the only set to be ranked for both chancery, probate and tax and clinical negligence on the North Eastern circuit.  Additionally, the set has been ranked as Tier 2 for both inquests & inquiries and court of protection & community care.  Individual members received 83 rankings in this year’s edition across:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Court of Protection and Community Care</li>  <li>Chancery, Probate and Tax</li>  <li>Clinical Negligence</li>  <li>Commercial Litigation</li>  <li>Employment</li>  <li>Family: Children and Domestic Violence</li>  <li>Family: Divorce and Financial Remedy</li>  <li>Personal Injury</li>  <li>Property and Construction</li>  <li>Professional Negligence</li>  <li>Inquests and Inquiries</li> </ul>

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Your Shortlist (0)

15th July 2025 | PLP Employment Grandstand Seminar

Interest Adds Up: Main v SpaDental Ltd [2024] EAT 200

Attorney General’s Regional Panel

Employment Law Update: Unreasonable Failure and Fire and Rehire Penalties

May Martin Successfully Defends Disability Discrimination Claim in the Employment Tribunal

Parklane Plowden Chambers Appoints Senior Practice Director

Pupil Isabella Brunton shares her experience of her first week ‘on her feet’

Parklane Plowden Chambers ranked as a Band One barristers’ set across five practice areas in the Chambers & Partners 2025 rankings

Isabella Brunton starts her second six and accepts instructions

Parklane Plowden Chambers ranked as a Top Tier barristers’ set across five practice areas in the Legal 500 2025 rankings

Inquest Law with Lunch with Karen Boyle – ‘Preparing for and Representing IPs at PIRHs’

Parklane Plowden shortlisted at the British Claims Awards 2026

REPLAY: Wine & Wisdom – ‘Missing – Can I Presume Dead?’ with Nicola Phillipson TEP

Two special podcasts with Jo Delahunty KC looking at domestic abuse and discussing her new book – We Set the Bar – Fighting for Equality, Empowerment and Change within the Legal Profession.

Your Shortlist (0)

Our Expertise

15th July 2025 | PLP Employment Grandstand Seminar

Interest Adds Up: Main v SpaDental Ltd [2024] EAT 200

Attorney General’s Regional Panel

Employment Law Update: Unreasonable Failure and Fire and Rehire Penalties

May Martin Successfully Defends Disability Discrimination Claim in the Employment Tribunal

Parklane Plowden Chambers Appoints Senior Practice Director

Pupil Isabella Brunton shares her experience of her first week ‘on her feet’

Parklane Plowden Chambers ranked as a Band One barristers’ set across five practice areas in the Chambers &amp; Partners 2025 rankings

Isabella Brunton starts her second six and accepts instructions

Parklane Plowden Chambers ranked as a Top Tier barristers’ set across five practice areas in the Legal 500 2025 rankings

Latest News

Inquest Law with Lunch with Karen Boyle – ‘Preparing for and Representing IPs at PIRHs’

Parklane Plowden shortlisted at the British Claims Awards 2026

REPLAY: Wine & Wisdom – ‘Missing – Can I Presume Dead?’ with Nicola Phillipson TEP

Two special podcasts with Jo Delahunty KC looking at domestic abuse and discussing her new book – We Set the Bar – Fighting for Equality, Empowerment and Change within the Legal Profession.

Parklane Plowden Chambers ranked as a Band One barristers’ set across five practice areas in the Chambers & Partners 2025 rankings