Adam Ross

Adam advises on and appears in civil and Employment Tribunal cases.

In the civil courts, Adam deals with employee competition matters, such as the enforcement of non-compete covenants. He can advise on merits at an early stage and assist with pre-action / without-prejudice correspondence and evidence-gathering, where he is able to draw upon his commercial background. Adam also appears in cases involving alleged discrimination in the provision of services.

In the Employment Tribunal, Adam regularly appears in trials involving allegations of discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and unfair dismissal. He can draft clear pleadings and advise on litigation strategy, whatever stage the matter has already reached.

Adam is experienced in managing expert evidence in the Employment Tribunal and draws upon several years of personal injury practice when doing so. He recently cross-examined a consultant psychiatrist during a complex two-day remedy hearing. He is well-versed in the legal principles and calculation methods in cases involving defined-benefit pension schemes, the “grossing up” of compensation to reflect the incidence of taxation, and holiday pay. He is often instructed to prepare schedules and counter-schedules of loss in high-value claims.

Adam represented the claimant in  PA Finlay & Co v Finlay – the leading case on “grossing up” to reflect the incidence of taxation. Adam has also appeared in appeals concerning the employer’s duty to consider alternative employment in redundancy situations, Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, and “last straws” in constructive unfair dismissal claims.

Adam was led by Eleena Misra in Kamath v Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in the High Court and by Giles Powell in Agarwal v Cardiff University and Cardiff & Vale University Health Board in the Court of Appeal.

Adam can accept instructions on a public access basis where appropriate – usually when the work required is advice or drafting. He regularly drafts and advises on settlement agreements.

Adam accepts instructions to assist with all types of internal workplace processes. He has conducted sensitive investigations, both as sole investigator and as a member of a multi-investigator team. He understands the need to ensure that internal processes are thorough but proportionate.

Adam is regularly instructed to appear in and advise on cases involving breach of contract, both within and outside of the employment setting. He drafts particulars of claim and defences; advises on merits, quantum and litigation strategy; and appears in costs and case management hearings, interim application hearings and trials. He has had cases involving bonus claims within the Employment Tribunal and the County Court. Adam has also been led on cases involving the Commercial Agents Regulations 1993 in the Circuit Commercial Court.

Adam can accept instructions on a public access basis, where appropriate.

Adam acts for both regulators and registrants. He spent six months working for Kingsley Napley LLP, presenting cases on behalf of the Health and Care Professions Council. He appeared in a variety of final hearings, up to two weeks in length. He also appeared in preliminary hearings, interim order applications and interim order reviews. Since then, Adam has prosecuted and defended registrants at the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service and defended registrants at the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Adam is regularly instructed in personal injury cases, on the fast track and multi-track, for both claimants and defesndants. He has extensive experience of trials on both tracks; costs and case management hearings; and interim applications. Most of his cases now involve employer’s or occupiers’ liability. Adam also has experience of the First-Tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) in both eligibility and compensation appeals.

• High Court judgment applying Chhabra v West London Mental Health Trust to an MHPS investigation
• Event: Simon Cheetham QC & Adam Ross speak at OSC ‘The Consequences of Covid’ seminar three
• The Implied Term of Trust and Confidence and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: a Reply
• CA considers correct approach for interpreting ‘in the public interest’ in Chesterton case