Harry is ranked within both The Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500 UK Bar Guide 2026 for Employment.
Harry has a broad practice covering all areas of employment law and acts for both claimants and respondents. He appears regularly in the Employment Tribunal and is commonly instructed in cases that are high-value and have complex factual backgrounds. Harry is regularly instructed in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and is comfortable with appellate litigation raising novel issues of law.
Harry has a particular expertise in employment status. He was instructed as junior counsel in the appeal to the Supreme Court in Professional Game Match Officials Limited v HMRC [2024] UKSC 29 , the leading authority on employment status. He was also previously instructed as junior Counsel in Kickabout Productions Limited v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 502[HS2] , an IR35 case in the Court of Appeal concerning employment status and the construction of contracts of employment.
Harry's instructions in the Employment Appeal Tribunal include:
Parnell v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2024] EAT 130 – The Claimant had presented 13 successive claims in the Employment Tribunal, which were consolidated into two separate proceedings. The claim for reasonable adjustments was upheld in the first proceedings, but dismissed in the second proceedings. The Claimant appealed on the basis that the two judgments were inconsistent, and that the second tribunal had misapplied each of the respective legal tests. Harry acted pro-bono for the Claimant.
British Telecommunications plc v Robertson (UKEAT/0229/20/RN) - Harry acted for the successful Respondent, appealing against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that the employee had been both unfairly dismissed and subjected to s.15 discrimination arising from disability. HHJ Auerbach J accepted that the Tribunal had failed to properly apply the test for causation under s.15 after reaching an unexpected finding in relation to disability. He also found that the Tribunal had erred in relation to the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments, and dismissed that aspect of the claim without remitting it to the Tribunal.
San Diego v Bagshot Rehab Centre Ltd and anor – The Claimant raised concerns about onboarding procedures at a care home for patients with substantial clinical needs and was dismissed after being employed for 1 month. The ET found that expressions of concern were not a disclosure of information. The Claimant appealed on the basis that the Tribunal failed properly to apply the test for a ‘qualifying disclosure’. Harry acted pro-bono for the Claimant.
Johnson vs Latchman (UKEAT/0239/19/OO) - Harry acted for the successful Claimant, responding to an appeal against a decision to extend the time for a Claimant to bring a claim for disability discrimination. Tucker J found that the ET's findings were open to it, and that, in any event, she would have made the same decision.
Godwin Jumbo v Zonal Retail Data Systems (UKEAT/0275/19/LA) - Harry acted for Respondent in relation to an appeal against a decision of the ET not to allow the Claimant to amend his claim to add four new causes of action. The Claimant had argued the ET had misapplied both the tests for extension of time and the balance of hardship test for applications to amend.
Le Page v East London NHS Foundation Trust (UKEAT0161/19/OO) - Harry represented the Respondent who successfully applied for costs following withdrawal of the Claimant's appeal. Eady J accepted the Respondent's submissions and awarded costs having found that the appeal was both unreasonable and misconceived.
Harry has recently been instructed in the following matters in the Employment Tribunal:
- Ashraf v NHS England – Harry acted for the successful Respondent in a 10 day trial for race and religious discrimination and part time worker detriment. The Claimant had made 38 allegations relating to events that took place over 5 years. Harry successfully defended the claim in its entirety.
- Hall v BT plc – Harry acted for the successful Respondent in a 6-day trial for unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and sex discrimination. The Claimant was the sole-carer for his disabled daughter, and argued that the Respondent’s decision to restructure the business without permitting him to work from home was discriminatory. The Claimant sought to apply s.19 of the Equality Act 2010, relying on his daughter’s disability, by analogy with the comparable European case of CHEZ. The case involved a novel attempt to interpret s.19 in accordance with the Marleasing principle. Harry successfully defended the claim in its entirety.
- Warburton v Openreach Ltd – Harry acted for the successful Respondent in a 10-day trial for trade union detriment, disability discrimination and victimisation. The Claimant alleged that he had been subjected to detrimental treatment during a redeployment process because of his status as a senior trade union and health and safety representative. He also alleged that he had been treated detrimentally because of his dyslexia. Harry successfully defended the claim in its entirety.
- Harry is instructed in relation to ongoing remedy proceedings in a disability discrimination claim. The ET has found that the Respondent is liable for discrimination, and the Claimant seeks £740,000 for lifelong loss of earnings on the basis that the discrimination caused severe psychiatric injuries.
- Singh vs M&S plc - Harry acted for the Respondent in a seven-day hearing, dealing with numerous allegations of discrimination arising from the Claimant's disability which alleged to culminate with forcing the Claimant to resign. Harry successfully defended the Claim in its entirety
- Black vs FCO Services - A ten day trial for constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination in which Harry acted for the Respondent (led by Christopher Stone KC) and successfully restricted the scope of the Claimant's claim to the month prior to dismissal although the claim related to events took place several years beforehand.
- Smith v The University of Brighton Academies Trust – Harry acted for the Claimant in a 5-day whistleblowing claim. The Claimant was an Assistant Principal who complained that pupil safeguarding procedures were not being properly followed prior to being made redundant.
- A highly contentious whistleblowing case (acting for the Respondent) in which anonymisation orders have been made and the disclosures are said to have been made in bad faith which was listed for an 8 day hearing prior to settlement. Harry was successful in defending the anonymisation order despite challenge by the Claimant.
- Sterling v Genesis Research Trust and Professor Lord Winston - Harry acted for the successful Respondents opposing an application for interim relief on the basis that the redundancy exercise leading to the Claimant’s dismissal was likely genuine.
Harry’s recent advisory instructions include:
A matter in which an employee working for a UK company lived and worked in the middle east and was responsible for developing the company’s interests overseas. Harry was instructed in connection with a dispute about the employee’s entitlement to a calculation of a bonus payment and was specifically asked to advise on jurisdiction, appropriate forum and territorial scope.
A matter in which a senior employee was diagnosed with Parkinsons shortly before receiving notice of termination allegedly due to redundancy. Harry was instructed to advise as to whether the employer could be prevented from dismissing the employee by virtue of his contractual entitlement to permanent health ensurance. Harry was led by Andrew Burns KC.
A matter in which an employment contract contained both a 12-month notice period and a broad, 6-month restrictive covenant. Harry was asked to advise the employee in relation to the restrictive covenants contained in their contract.
A matter in which a locum consultant working for an NHS Trust was suspended from clinical practice, affecting his ability to undertake various forms of paid voluntary overtime. Harry is instructed to advise on the holiday pay claim brought concerning this period.
A case in which the same employee had brought two successive claims against the same employee. Harry was asked to advise as to the procedural consequences of the overlap between the two claims and to provide his strategic input on preparation of the latter claim for trial. Harry was also instructed on both claims and successfully defended both in full.
Harry also has experiencing of providing advice on employment related taxation, including:
- The taxation of insurance premiums towards a group policy providing cover in the event of a loss of employment;
- The deduction of National Insurance Contributions at source from a the founder and director of a company;
- The application of IR35 in in tripartite agency relationships.
Print PDF
Connect
Vcard
