Alex advises and represents both claimants and respondents in all areas of employment and discrimination law. He is frequently instructed in factually and legally complex multi-week trials. Alex has experience of employment litigation in the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and the High Court.
Alex is often instructed in, and therefore entrusted with, matters which involve an element of significant reputational risk. He prides himself on building trust with clients and witnesses by working collaboratively as part of a broader legal team, and by the grounded, user-friendly manner in which he approaches matters.
Alex continues to develop his appellate practice, having been instructed in a number of matters on appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, on a led basis and as sole counsel.
Recent and current work
- Dr Kamalnayan Gupta v Northampton Hospital NHS Trust[2021] EWHC 965 (QB): successfully represented the Respondent in the High Court, led by Mark Sutton KC, in its resistance of an MHPS interim injunction requiring the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant and restraining the Respondent from contacting the Applicant’s private work providers in relation to allegations of fraud;
- Successfully defended the First Respondent, an NHS Trust, in a ten-day hearing against various claims of disability discrimination. The claim raised further complex issues regarding the contract worker provisions under s.41 EqA, the vicarious liability of principals for agents under s.109(2) EqA, and the application of these provisions to acts done by individuals who were employed by various NHS Trusts but all of whom were supplied to an unincorporated association comprised of said Trusts for the provision of integrated healthcare services across the south-east of England.
- Successfully defended the Respondent, an internationally renowned museum, in a five-day hearing against claims of direct sex discrimination and sexual harassment which raised issues of statutory vicarious liability under s.109 EqA. The Tribunal dismissed the freestanding claims against the museum and found that the acts of the alleged harasser were not done in the course of his employment, per s.109(2) EqA. The Tribunal stated obiter that the museum would have in any event succeeded in deploying the reasonable steps defence under s.109(4) EqA.
- Successfully represented a group of sixteen Claimant actors, dancers and stage managers, against the Respondent, the world’s largest pantomime production company, in a claim to establish s.230(3)(b) ERA worker status so as to recover backdated holiday pay under the WTR within the context of the theatre industry. The Respondent was represented by a leading KC.
- Successfully represented the Claimant, a senior police officer, in their claim for direct race discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and victimisation, by settling the claim on day seven of a ten-day hearing following cross-examination of several of the Respondent’s witnesses. A favourable settlement was achieved.
- Successfully represented the Claimant, assisted by an Urdu interpreter, in a three-day hearing for claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and unlawful deductions from wages for which the Tribunal additionally awarded the full 25% uplift for the Respondent’s failure to comply with the ACAS Code. The Claimant received the full value of his Schedule of Loss.
- Successfully represented the Respondent, a West End Musical, at a preliminary hearing at which the Claimant’s claims of direct race discrimination, harassment and whistleblowing were struck out.
- Successfully secured, on behalf of the Respondent, disclosure of privileged correspondence between the Claimant and his legal representatives following a successful application for specific disclosure based on the Claimant’s collateral waiver of privilege, leading to a significant portion of the Claimant’s claim being struck out as an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson.
Appellate work
- Henna Jaleel v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EAT 10: successfully appeared for the Respondent before the EAT, as sole counsel, in an appeal regarding the application of the shifting burden of proof under s.136 EqA.
- Reuser v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust UKEAT/0020/19/BA: appeared for the Appellant before the EAT, led by Nadia Motraghi KC, in a complex serious procedural irregularity appeal and s.103A ERA protected disclosure dismissal cross-appeal.
- Instructed as sole counsel by the Respondent trade union steward resisting the Appellant employer’s appeal against an adverse finding of s.146 TULRCA trade union detriment. Alex advised on prospects, drafted the Respondent’s Answer, and was instructed to represent the Respondent at the appeal hearing. The Appellant withdrew the appeal shortly before the hearing.
- Instructed as sole counsel by Unite the Union to draft its Notice of Appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s decision to reject its claims under TUPE Reg.13 for failure to comply with the requirement at Rule 10(1)(c) of the ET Rules – the rule relating to early conciliation numbers and claim forms. The Employment Tribunal corrected its error by reconsideration prior to the appeal being heard.
As a pupil, under the supervision of Rebecca Tuck KC and Katharine Newton KC, Alex gained exposure to high-profile and complex employment litigation and sensitive internal investigations, including leading ‘gig economy’ employment status cases, multi-week discrimination complaints, and industrial action injunction applications.
Alex has a particular interest in employment and discrimination cases which engage the Human Rights Act 1998. Alex was instructed by the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (‘BAPIO’), led by Nadia Motraghi KC, in a judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the Government’s PPE Guidance in the context of the COVID-19 crisis (click here). Alex is a member of the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel.
