Alex is frequently instructed across the full range of Employment Tribunal and civil court employment matters, and is a frequent contributor to 3PB’s Employment Newsletter. He has particular experience in acting for schools, universities and education professionals, informed by his education law practice.
He also acts in Equality Act claims brought in the County Court and First-tier Tribunal outside of the employment context, and has experience of claims on behalf of both employers and employees arising from restrictive covenants and non-poaching clauses.
His recent cases include:
Naomi Webber and Alex Leonhardt analyse the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109, an important decision which explains how direct discrimination interrelates with the right to hold and manifest religious and philosophical beliefs in the workplace.
Alex and Naomi draw out key points from the judgment and explain how it can be applied in future cases.
Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of L v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2024] UKFTT 001044 (TC), in which the FTT considers the question of taxation of a settlement of financial losses from discrimination, and in particular when it is said that the losses flow from being prevented from taking on work.
Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v USDAW [2024] UKSC 28, in which the Supreme Court was asked to consider if Tesco was entitled to terminate certain employment contracts which included an entitlement to "Retained Pay", described as a "permanent" benefit, to then re-hire the same employees on contracts without Retained Pay.
Alex Leonhardt analyses Christopher Watson v Wallwork Nelson Johnson & Anor [2024] EAT 105, a case concerned with employment status, in which the EAT sets out a thorough statement of the relevant principles in determining the existence of an employment relationship against the background of a potential partnership.
Alex Leonhardt considers the case of ONEA v Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd [2023] EAT 125, in which the EAT issues its second reminder this year (following Lycatel Services Ltd v Schneider [2023] EAT 81) that applications to stay need to be determined following a decision on which forum the dispute would be “most conveniently and appropriately be tried” as per Bowater Plc v Charlwood [1991] ICR 798, and also considers the relationship between that test and a presumption against the High Court being bound by prior findings of the Employment Tribunal.
Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of Steel v Spencer Road LLP [2023] EWHC 2492 (Ch), in which the High Court decided with some certainty that though a bonus scheme conditional on the employee remaining in employment for a specified time acts as a disincentive to that employee resigning, it does not constitute a restraint of trade.
Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of McNicholas v (1) Care and Learning Alliance (2) CALA Staffbank [2023] EAT 127, in which the EAT considered whether a regulator’s decision that there was a case to answer, following initial reports made in retaliation for a protected disclosure, constituted an “intervening act” in assessing damages.
Alex Leonhardt reflects on the case of Jackson v The University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust [2023] EAT 102, in which the EAT considers the application of Hogg v Dover dismissals to an employee in a contractual redundancy situation. The EAT gives guidance on how such claims are to be determined by Employment Tribunals.
Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of Mrs Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School (The Archbishop’s Council of the Church of England intervening) EA-2020-000896-JOJ in which the EAT considers a case involving dismissal on the basis of the manner a protected belief was manifested by an employee in social media posts, and guidance on the question of proportionality in such cases.
Alex Leonhardt considers the case of Mr J Edward v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EAT 33, in which the EAT carefully considered the relevant principles for approaching questions of failure to mitigate losses, and in particular where percentage reductions similar to “loss of chance” cases are appropriate.
Alex Leonhardt looks at the case of Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller, in which the EAT considered the application of direct discrimination in circumstances where both staff of both sexes shared nominally the same toilet facilities.
Alex Leonhardt considers the Supreme Court’s decision in McCue v Glasgow City Council, a claim against a local authority’s decision to not disregard certain disability-related expenses from a means-testing assessment.
Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of Nexus v RMT & Unite the Union [2022] EWCA Civ 1408, in which the Court of Appeal considered the application of the contractual doctrine of mistake - both common mistake and unilateral mistake - in the context of a collective bargaining agreement, and its potential consideration by Employment Tribunals.
Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of Hilco Capital Limited v Denise Harrington [2022] EAT 156, in which the EAT considered the evidential burden in respect of claims that an ex-employee suffers disadvantages in the labour market arising from stigma related to whistleblowing or bringing claims against their former employers.
Alex Leonhardt reviews Department for Work and Pensions v Mrs Susan Boyers [2022] EAT 76, in which the EAT gives useful advice on the above matters (for the second time in the same case).
Alex Leonhardt analyses Clark v Middleton and anor [2022] EAT 31, a case in which the EAT considered the ET's discretion to make (or not make) an award of compensation for breaches of TUPE Regulations, and the effect of withdrawal of a claim on a defendant's liability to pay compensation, in circumstances where the claimant has no freestanding right to bring a claim against
them.
Alex Leonhardt analyses USDAW & Ors v Tesco Stores Limited [2022] EWHC 201 (QB), in which the High Court considered the restraints on the ability of employers to terminate with notice in order to impose new terms, in circumstances where there had been a prior commitment to keep a particular term.
Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd [2022] EWA Civ 7,
Alex Leonhardt reviews Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd [2022] EWA Civ 7, in which the Court of Appeal considers both vicarious liability for employees’ practical jokes or “horseplay” and a purported direct duty on employees to prevent the same, with some useful commentary on the relevance of tension or animosity between staff when that contributes to an employees’ wrongdoing.
Alex Leonhardt reviews A v Burke & Hare (EA-2020-SCO-0000067-DT), a case in which the EAT concludes that applications for anonymity orders need to be supported by robust evidence on harm that will arise to the party, going beyond mere embarrassment or social opprobrium, with evidence of impact on labour market outcomes potentially considered relevant and sufficient.
Mallon v AECOM Ltd, UKEAT/0175/20/LA (V)
Employment and civil law barrister Alex Leonhardt analyses Mallon v AECOM Ltd, UKEAT/0175/20/LA (V), a case in which the EAT again urged caution in the use of strike-out applications in discrimination cases, and warned against only considering the first of the three duties under s20 of the Equality Act in reasonable adjustment claims.
Welcome to our employment law team’s March newsletter, edited by Joseph England, featuring analysis from Joseph, Gareth Graham, Colin McDevitt and Matthew Curtis on the following cases:
- Kau Media Group Ltd v Hart [2025] EWHC 553 (KB)
- Gourlay v West Dunbartonshire Council [2025] EAT 29
- W v Highways England and others, 18th February 2025, [2025] EAT 18, Lord Fairley
- Kostrova v McDermott International INC and CB&I UK Ltd, 13th March 2025, [2025] EAT 35, Lord Fairley
- Kamphues v Venator Materials UK Ltd, 19th March 2025, [2025] EAT 30, HHJ Tayler
- Kinch v Compassion in World Farming International, 26th March 2025, [2025] EAT 41, Lord Fairley
- Impact Recruitment Services Ltd v Korpysa [2025] EAT 22
Naomi Webber edits the 12th edition of our education law newsletter featuring analysis from our barristers Alice de Coverley, Ben Amunwa, Olivia McGonigle, Naomi Webber and Alex Leonhardt. We look back at our team's 2nd education law conference in February and highlight recent involvement of our barristers in important cases and upcoming events.
Continue readingWelcome to our February Employment Law newsletter, edited by Michael Smith, featuring analysis from Michael, Daniel Brown, Jo Laxton, Naomi Webber and Alex Leonhardt on the following cases:
- Jones v SoS for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568
- Douglas v North Lanarkshire [2024] EAT 194
- Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109
- Eddie Stobbart Limited v Graham [2025] EAT 14
Welcome to 3PB’s final Employment and Discrimination Law newsletter for 2024. Edited by Jo Laxton, it features analysis from Ben Amunwa, Alex Leonhardt and Emma Greening on the following cases:
- Connor v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2024] EAT 175
- Shakil v Samons Limited [2024] EAT 192
- L v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2024] UKFTT 001044 (TC)
We thank all our clients and contacts for their support throughout 2024 and wish you all our best wishes for 2025.
