Skip to main content

Employment Tribunals

There is never a good time to face an Employment Tribunal claim.

But when it happens, it’s important to entrust your matter to a legal team who:

  • Has seen it all before. There aren’t many Tribunal litigation issues, no matter how obscure, that we haven’t come across before and can’t bring our experience to bear on
  • Understands the difference between a routine matter and a “bet the farm” claim, and allocates resources to match
  • Realises that, while litigation might be our day job, it isn’t yours and guides you through the process – from pleadings to disclosure through witness statements and on to the full hearing – as smoothly and effortlessly as possible
  • Always has its eye on the commercial objective, knowing when the time is right to go in “all guns blazing”, and when an expertly negotiated exit is the best way forward

We can handle the whole range of Employment Tribunals claims and have particular expertise in:

  • Complex and sensitive discrimination and whistleblowing claims
  • Equal pay
  • Unfair dismissal, including the various types of automatic claim
  • Protective award claims under TUPE and TULR(C)A, and TUPE employee liability information disputes
  • Unlawful deductions from wages
  • Breach of contract
  • Dismissal and detriment for trade union membership and activities
  • Agency worker disputes

Related items

Related services

Signing contracts

Court of appeal decision gives comfort on employment status for tax purposes

26 May 2022

The Court of Appeal has held that when determining employment status of an individual for tax purposes the contractual terms should not be disregarded unless they are unrealistic. This decision offers some comfort to businesses which engage self-employed contractors, including those in the gig economy.

Office 1 thumbnail

A requirement to offer or accept a minimum amount of work is not a prerequisite of worker status, says the Court of Appeal

10 March 2022

In this latest employment status case, the Court of Appeal considered if an individual can be a worker without there being any commitment to offer or accept a minimum amount of work. The Court concluded that such a commitment is not a requirement of worker status and that a panel committee member was, therefore, a worker entitled to paid holidays.


Agency workers and the right to be informed of vacancies

22 February 2022

Agency workers must be informed of relevant vacancies with the hiring business but have no right to be considered for those vacancies on the same terms as the hirer’s direct recruits, according to a new Court of Appeal ruling.


Pimlico Plumbers part two - compensation for unpaid holiday throughout engagement

02 February 2022

In a decision with major implications across the gig economy and beyond, the Court of Appeal has ruled that workers who were incorrectly classified as independent contractors and were not paid for holiday can claim compensation for the whole period of their engagement.


Hong Kong court upholds summary dismissal in light of employee’s secret business

17 December 2021

In the case of Cosme De Net Co Ltd v Lam Kin Ming [2021] HKDC 445, the Court of First Instance upheld an employer’s decision to summarily dismiss an employee who ran a competing business in secret.

office floor

Hong Kong court confirms that a party cannot enforce a contract with a unilateral mistake which he/she knew or should have known did not reflect the other party’s intentions

17 December 2021

Zhang Qiang v Cisco Systems (HK) Ltd [2021] HKCFI 694 is a case that reminds employers of the importance of putting the right figure in a settlement agreement – especially when dealing with an uncooperative employee. In this case, although ending in the employer’s victory, a typo in the settlement agreement had led to a decade-long lawsuit.

Hong Kong court finds that pilot’s “standby” time did not constitute as rest days for the purposes of the Employment Ordinance

17 December 2021

In the case of Breton Jean v. 香港麗翔公務航空有限公司 (Hk Bellawings Jet Limited) [2021] HKDC 46, the Court found that the employer had failed to provide rest days to the employee as they had been expected to have a degree of flexibility during their standby period.

Back To Top