Jo Laxton Feb 4

Jo Laxton

Year of Call: 2022
Solicitor: 2000
Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: 01865 793736

Download Expertise CV Add Expertise to Shortlist

How to use the Shortlist tool?

Clerk Details

  • Clerk Name: Russell Porter
  • Clerk Telephone: 01865 793 736
  • Clerk Email: [email protected]

Employment and discrimination

Jo Laxton was a highly experienced solicitor who has worked in senior legal roles, most recently as Lead Counsel (Employment) at Vodafone and previously South West Water, Head of Employment and Legal Compliance at Rotork Plc. She is no longer a practising solicitor, having elected to transfer across to the Bar and is now a practising barrister with 3PB.

Redundancy

She already has experience as an advocate, for example successfully representing a major motor car manufacturer in unfair dismissal/ collective redundancy proceedings. She also handled interim final hearings extensively in sex discrimination/equal pay proceedings (so called 'part time pensions' cases).

Having strong relationships with colleagues in HR and employee relations, Jo has enjoyed the opportunity of advising on both individual and collective redundancy, s188A obligations and selection criteria.

TUPE

Jo has supported procurement teams and HR in the progression of outsourcing/ insourcing activity, advising on the application of the TUPE regulations, consultation and measures, the provision of employee liability information, and changes to terms and conditions/ harmonisation.

Labour law

Jo has advised public sector and commercial entities on range of trade union issues, including industrial action, picketing, release and facility time, S.145B inducements and detriment generally. She also advised on the status of collective terms, assisted with the negotiation of collective agreements, and advised on compulsory recognition through the CAC.

Discrimination

Devising and supporting policy on equal opportunity and diversity has been a constant theme of Jo’s in-house work, and she has taken responsibility for advising and training on common workplace issues. She’s advised on the definition of disability and making reasonable adjustments. She has also handled sensitive race and sex discrimination matters, including the careful investigation of complaints, allegations of harassment, resolving workplace issues, dismissal, litigation and dispute resolution. She has provided training on unconscious bias, and harassment.

Service delivery

Jo’s previous work as a solicitor in house has allowed her to develop experience in legal services delivery, having held responsibility for bulk claim management and team management. She has undertaken panel firm reviews mainly for the provision of employment law services, and has devised tools designed to provide effective case management.

 

  • Articles

    • Can time limit be addressed at final hearing when an application to amend was previously granted?

      20th Feb 2025

      Jo Laxton on the case of Douglas v North Lanarkshire [2024] EAT 194 in which the EAT considered if, in granting an application to amend, it was an error of law for a tribunal to address the issue of limitation at the final hearing, noting the decisions in Amey Services v Alridge and Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

      The decision also briefly addresses a more discrete, secondary point, about the application of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v. Hitt.

      View Article

    • Applications to postpone on medical grounds must be made with adequate evidence

      28th Jan 2025

      Jo Laxton considers the EAT's decision in the case of Kaler v Insights ESC Ltd [2024] EAT 195, where is upheld the findings of an employment tribunal regarding discrimination arising from disability, and requests made by the Claimant during the final hearing for a postponement.

      View Article

    • If an Unless Order requires a party to do a certain thing, can it be met by doing another thing?

      25th Feb 2024

      Jo Laxton analyses the case of Bauhaus Educational Services Limited v Elemide [2023] EAT 161, in which the EAT considers the guidance in Minnoch to determine if a claimant had complied with the terms of an Unless Order.

      View Article

    • Was it fair to dismiss despite the dismissing manager not holding a final disciplinary hearing with the employee?

      31st Jul 2023

      Jo Laxton reviews Charalambous v National Bank of Greece [2023] EAT 75, a case in which the EAT had to decide if the process followed by the Respondent amounted to unfair dismissal.

      View Article

    • Preserving Diplomatic Relations – Updated Guidance on hearing evidence from individuals who are abroad

      7th Sep 2022

      Jo Laxton provides an analysis of the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals' updated guidance on hearing evidence from witnesses who are abroad.

      View Article

    • Consultation on process for public sector exit payments now open

      7th Sep 2022

      The Government has opened a consultation exercise to garner input on an administrative approvals process designed to create scrutiny and afford assurance in relation to certain public sector exit decisions.

      View Article

    • Pay increase was an unlawful inducement 

      27th Jul 2022

      Joanna Laxton reviews Ineos Infrastructure Grangemouth Ltd v Jones and others and Ineos Chemicals Grangemouth Ltd v Arnott and others [2022] EAT 82, in which an employer cannot designate the end of pay negotiations of its own volition, as to do so would undermine the aims of S145B TULRCA.

      View Article

    • Sham Redundancy justifies the maximum 25% ACAS uplift  

      1st Jul 2022

      An employer cannot avoid the requirements of the ACAS Code of Practice (and the award of an uplift to compensation) by disguising a dismissal as redundancy, says the EAT: Joanna Laxton reviews Rentplus UK Ltd v Coulson [2022] EAT 81.

      View Article

    • The principles that apply when determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants

      31st Mar 2022

      Employment pupil barrister Joanna Laxton analyses the case of Law by Design v Saira Ali [2022] EWHC 426 (QB), in which the claimant was successful seeking to restrain the defendant from breaching the terms of her restrictive covenants. The article provides a useful reminder of the principles that apply when determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants.

      View Article
View Full CV
<< /span> >