- Wilson v. Health and Safety Executive  1 C.M.L.R. 24,  ICR 302, Court of Appeal: the interpretation of the “serious doubts” test as set out by the European Court of Justice in respect of service-related pay schemes.
- Attridge Law v. Coleman  2 C.M.L.R. 24,  IRLR 88, EAT: the circumstances in which a question can be referred to the European Court of Justice by an Employment Tribunal.
- Allonby v. Accrington & Rossendale College  1 C.M.L.R. 35,  ICR 1324, European Court of Justice: the Court of Justice ruled on the necessity for a comparator in equal pay claims relating to pay and access to occupational pension schemes.
- Jermin & Williams v DVLA and Department for Transport (Central London ET) (2007-2013: multi-party equal pay claims brought by claimants working in the DVLA.
- Highland Council v. TGWU and others  IRLR 272, EAT (Scotland) – multi-party equal pay proceedings concerning the extent to which unions had complied with the requirement to lodge grievances on behalf of their members.
- Home Office v. Bailey & others  ICR 1057, Court of Appeal: the circumstances in which a Tribunal can determine that there is sufficient disparate impact to require an employer to objectively justify a difference in pay.
- Home Office v. Bailey & others  IRLR 757, EAT: multi-party equal pay proceedings in which the EAT determined various issues including whether the claimants’ work had been rated as equivalent to that of their comparators, the Tribunal’s approach to red-circling GMFs and the quantification of the extent of objective justification.
- Lambe v. 186k Ltd  ICR 307, Court of Appeal: whether a Tribunal was entitled to find that a claimant would have been dismissed in any event where there was an absence of a fair consultation and selection process.
- Meares v. Medway PCT, EAT, 7 December 2010: the EAT considered the correct approach to the question of whether a protected disclosure had been made in good faith.
- Chief Constable of Norfolk v. Arthurton, EAT, 6 December 2006: the EAT considered the Tribunal’s approach to findings of sex discrimination and victimisation.
- Muschett v. London Borough of Hounslow and others  ICR 424, EAT: the circumstances in which the EAT should exercise its discretion to extend time when an appeal is lodged late.
- Prakash v Wolverhampton City Council, EAT, 6 September 2006: the EAT held that a claim form could be amended to include a new claim which had arisen after the claim form had been issued.
- Kalu v Brighton and Sussex Universities Hospital Trust  EqLR, 488, EAT. The correct approach for Employment Tribunals to take in decisions to exclude evidence.
- Robert also has extensive experience of public sector pay systems and has advised several government departments and agencies in respect of large scale pay and grading reviews.
- He also advises and represents NHS Trusts in respect of claims by doctors relating to their banding under NHS Terms and Conditions.