Michael Michaeloudis

Michael trained, qualified and worked in Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners leading national employment law firms. He qualified as a Solicitor in 2009.

Michael has extensive experience in contentious and non-contentious matters, including drafting contracts of employment, contract reviews on behalf of employees prior to commencing new employment, advising and/or litigating in Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunals.

He has a wealth of experience in a wide range of employment law areas including, constructive dismissal, unfair dismissal, redundancy (including protective award claims), changes to terms and conditions, breach of contract, discrimination (including sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, race, disability, age and religion and belief), harassment and victimisation, whistleblowing, TUPE, equal pay, holiday pay and working time issues, national minimum wage, employee status and trade union related issues (including interim relief, trade union detriment and dismissals) and settlement agreements. He is also very experienced in multi-party disputes.

He is experienced in carrying out Tribunal advocacy (Preliminary Hearings and Judicial Mediation).

Michael regularly delivers seminars and training sessions on a wide range of areas of employment law. He is a member of the Industrial Law Society.

Michael’s wide range of experience has meant that he has represented clients in a number of industries, this has included the police, prison service, fire brigade, civil servants, headteachers, teachers, lecturers, banking, manufacturing, retail, transport, healthcare and media.

Ervaring:

Michael has successfully acted in several significant cases in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. Those include:

Lofty v. Sadek Hamis t/a First Café [2018]: Successfully represented an Appellant at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on the point that ‘cancer’ under schedule 1, paragraph 6 and 7 Equality Act 2010 should be given a broad interpretation to include pre-cancerous cells. This is the highest authority and landmark case in establishing this point of law and was widely reported in the Daily Mirror, legal publications and online.

Ball v. First Essex Buses Limited [2018]: Successfully represented a long serving bus driver in the London East ET in claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal following a failed random drugs test. This case was widely publicised in The Times, Daily Telegraph, Sun interviewed on BBC Radio Essex.

Thomas and Others v. Glenside Manor Services Limited and Others [2018]: Successfully represented several physiotherapists (and lead claimants) at the Southampton ET in establishing that a share sale amounted to a TUPE transfer, the exception to the rule.

Smith and Others v. Keeping Kids (In Compulsory Liquidation [2018]: Successfully acted for a Claimant at the London South ET and EAT in awarding the Claimants’ 90 days’ pay in respect to a Protective Award claim, following a failure to collectively consult. This case provided guidance as to what is meant by “in good time.”

Mustafa and Steen v. Trek Highway Services Limited and Others [2017]: Successfully represented two Appellants in the EAT on the point of a TUPE relevant transfer (Regulation 3) and temporary cessation of activities against 5 Respondents following the decision of the Watford ET. This case was widely reported, including being referred to in the Legal 500 (2018).

Osborne and 29 Others v. Capita Business Services Limited and Others [2016]: Represented 30 Claimants’ in a 10-day hearing in the Watford ET in respect to claims for automatic unfair dismissal (TUPE). This claim enjoyed success at both at the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal, recovering compensation for the employees affected and in some cases at the statutory cap for unfair dismissal.

Morris and Others v. E Ivor Hughes Education [2014]: Successfully acted for a Claimant at the EAT following the Tribunal’s decision to award 90 days’ pay in respect to a Protective Award claim. The EAT revisited and reviewed the law on Protective Awards, especially the timing of when the duty to consult arises, the special circumstances defence and remedy.