James has been recognised as a Band 1 Leading Junior in Employment Law on the Western Circuit by the Legal 500 for the past 5 years. He has been described as “highly experienced in dismissal and discrimination matters” (Legal 500 2019) and “very thorough and an excellent advocate” (Legal 500 2020). He has also been recognised in Chambers and Partners, in 2020 he was praised as “incredibly thorough and really easy to work with. He does a great job for clients and explains issues in an easily digestible and clear way”.
He has a successful nationwide employment practice, instructed on behalf of both Claimants and Respondents across England and Wales and routinely in multi-week hearings. He is often involved in cases concerning large public or professional bodies, such as the NHS, Police Forces, Solicitors Firms or Charities.
Solicitors are delighted with his down to earth yet no nonsense approach to litigation, and his ability to give realistic and pragmatic advice to his clients with regards to prospects of success and settlement. James works alongside Solicitors from giving initial advice on merits, through to drafting the ET1 or ET3, representation at CMDs and PHRs and ultimately at Tribunal and EAT. He also has significant experience of reaching successful outcomes at Judicial Mediation.
Whilst accepting instructions in all areas of employment law, due to his prior experience in the Crown Court, James is frequently called upon to deal with cases of whistleblowing or discrimination, or where there is an issue of dishonestly, owing to his thorough, thoughtful and robust advocacy style.
He has a particular interest in the enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, and is regularly instructed to appear in County and High Court to seek injunctive relief on behalf of employers.
James often lectures on updates in employment law. He has previously delivered well received seminars on restrictive covenants and an update on whistleblowing dismissal and detriments in light of Jhuti v Royal Mail. He is currently providing training on maternity discrimination in the workplace and remedy and quantum issues.
As a result of his judicial appointment, James is unable to accept any instructions for any cases which may be heard in the Wales ET Region.
Dodd v UK Business Solutions Ltd (1) and Moselmi (2)  EAT 44 – EAT gave guidance on extent of disclosure obligations in public interest detriment claims when Claimant claims direct knowledge of the subject matter of disclosures.
Fox v South Essex Academy Trust UKEAT/0093/19/RN – ET erred in law by failing to appreciate the Claimant’s case, despite following the contents of the agreed list of issues in reaching its judgment
Harrison v Aryma Limited UKEAT/0085/19/2708 – approach that the ET should adopt when issues concerning section 111A(3) and (4) ERA 1996 are raised.
Twenty Four Seven Recruitment Services Ltd and Others v Afonso and 190 Others  IRLR 4 – definitions of Regulation 10(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010
Pulman v Merthyr Tydfil College Ltd UKEAT/0309/16/JOJ – application of section 19 Equality Act 2010, relationship between sections 15 and 20 Equality Act and Burns/Barke principal.
Recent Instructions include:
Re: AD. James is instructed on behalf of the Respondent in a multi-week claim brought by former in-house Counsel concerning whistleblowing detriments and disability discrimination. The case is listed in Middlesborough ET for four weeks in early 2023.
Re: CT. James is instructed by a large South West charity to defend claims of public interest detriments and s103A dismissal arising from concerns around the appointment of a new CEO. Listed in June 2023.
Re: SM. James is currently instructed on behalf of a General Practitioner who was constructively dismissed having blown the whistle on unsafe working practices at a GP’s Surgery in Bristol. After a 5 day liability hearing in March 2021 where the Claimant was successful in all her claims, and a 3 day remedy hearing in March 2022 which the Claimant was awarded over a decade of losses owing to the impact upon her career, James continues to advise the Claimant ahead of a further two remedy hearings listed in 2023.
Re: WH. James was instructed as Leading Junior for the Respondent in claims brought by 4 Claimants concerning unfair dismissal, sex, marital status and religious discrimination and harassment from their employment at one of the largest Synagogues in the United Kingdom. The Claimants were represented by Queen’s Counsel and the claim was valued at over £1m.
Re: MR. James was instructed on a direct access basis by a Senior Solicitor in claims of disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment against her former employer. The claim concerned complex final pension issues through to retirement and was valued over £1m. With James’ assistance, including making a late application to amend the claim to include a s.39 EqA 2010 dismissal claim, which was allowed after a contested hearing, his client achieved a successful outcome at Judicial Mediation.
Re: PM. James represented the Respondent, a multi-national manufacturing company, defending a claim of unfair and wrongful dismissal brought by a former Director. The case involved evidence from two of the Respondent’s Directors requiring a translator.
Re: TM. James was instructed by the Claimant, a PCSO, in a claim of race and disability discrimination brought against the Metropolitan Police listed for 10 days.
Re: CC. Represented the Respondent in a sexual harassment claim concerning allegations of sexual assault by a male employee on a female colleague after a work night out.
Re: PD. Defending a Respondent, a Solicitors Firm, in a claim for constructive unfair dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination brought by a former Equity Partner.
Re: CS. James was instructed on behalf of an Academy Trust in proceedings brought by a former member of teaching staff for religious discrimination and harassment arising from alleged comments and behaviour towards a transgender student.
Re: LB. James successfully argued at trial that the Claimant had been constructively dismissed owing to the mis-application of the Respondent’s contractual discretion applying Wednesdbury principles.
Re: NG. James was instructed to represent the Office of a Member of the European Parliament to defend allegations of disability discrimination. The claim was dismissed.
Re: BC – James represented a Respondent College in the East Midlands for a 14 day hearing concerning 36 allegations of public disclosure detriments and direct race discrimination. All elements of the claim were dismissed.
Re: BF – Successfully defended a Housing Charity against 42 allegations of sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation, as well as constructive dismissal. The Tribunal accepted James’ forceful submission that elements of the claim were “a logical and legal nonsense”.
Re: K – Represented the Claimant in a multi-facted discrimination claim with the central issue being an allegedly forged contract over nine days of evidence. James sought (and was granted) the unusual step of an order for disclosure by physical inspection at the Respondent’s premises after large disclosure issues arose.
Re: LG – Represented the Claimant in a five day whistleblowing and unfair dismissal claim against an NHS Trust with linked HCPC proceedings.