Katherine Anderson examines the cases of Stena Drilling PTE Limited v Smith [2024] EAT 57 and TwistDX Limited and Others v Armes and Others [2024] EAT 45, concerned with international or territorial jurisdiction and considers the need to carefully analyse the facts of the case and raise jurisdiction questions as a preliminary issue in the absence of an 'obvious and plain' answer.
Clerks Details
- Clerk Name: Russell Porter
- Clerk Telephone: 01865 793736
- Clerk Email: [email protected]
- Clerk Name: Tom Cox
- Clerk Telephone: 0117 928 1520
- Clerk Email: [email protected]
- Clerk Name: Gemma Faulkner
- Clerk Telephone: 020 7583 8055
- Clerk Email: [email protected]
Employment and discrimination
Katherine is an experienced employment law specialist who has acted for and advised claimant and respondent employers in the private, public and not-for-profit sectors.
She offers particular expertise in relation to disability and other discrimination cases with a personal injury mental health aspect.
By way of example, recent cases include:
- A claim of alleged disability discrimination, relating to depression and stress at work, providing detailed advice in relation to case preparation
- Representation of a claimant manager in a high value claim for unfair dismissal and victimisation
- Representation of a respondent manager defending a race discrimination claim brought by the deceased’s executors with a high value personal injury aspect
- Representation of a respondent School Governing Body in relation to an unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee accused of lying about her qualifications
- Representation of a respondent nursery provider in relation to an unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee accused of sexual abuse of a child
- An alleged constructive “whistle-blowing” dismissal where the employee complained of a dangerous workplace
She has undertaken a number of successful judicial and private mediations as an Accredited Mediation Advocate.
In her employment practice she has a particular interest in the education sector and has acted in employment cases concerning staff at nurseries, schools and universities (see also Katherine’s Education Law profile).
-
Articles -
International and territorial jurisdiction – respondents fail to deal ‘knockout blow’
25th Apr 2024View Article -
The Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023 in force from 1 January 2024
13th Feb 2024View ArticleKatherine Anderson gives an update on the amendments to the Equality Act 2010, in which the purpose of the regulations is to reproduce in domestic law certain interpretive effects of retained EU law which, under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, would otherwise cease to apply in the UK after the end of 2023.
-
How pro-active should an employer be in making enquiries of a job applicant who indicates that they are disabled?
24th Aug 2023View ArticleKatherine Anderson analyses AECOM Limited v Mallon [2023] EAT 104, a case in which the EAT provides a useful review of the authorities on what reasonable enquiries an employer should make of a disabled job applicant.
-
A Tribunal's duty to seek clarification of what a claim intended
28th Jun 2023View ArticleKatherine Anderson considers the case of Mrs N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust: [2022] EAT 204 in which the ET failed to adjudicate upon a claim though its particulars set out sufficient information for it to be considered.
-
Protection from detriment of employees warning of potentially harmful health and safety circumstances
5th Jun 2023View ArticleKatherine Anderson considers the case of Miles v Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency [2023] EAT 62 in which the EAT confirmed the scope of the word "at" in the wording "at a place where" of section 44 (1)(c)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
-
The importance of correctly identifying the relevant provision, criterion or practice (‘PCP’) and pool for comparison, in any indirect discrimination claims
5th Jun 2023View ArticleKatherine Anderson analyses Royal Parks Ltd v Boohene, Antwi and Others [2023] EAT 63, a case which asked whether workers employed by third-party contractors could rely on the principal's own employees as comparators in a claim of indirect race discrimination relating to rates of pay, under section 41 EqA.
-
Case Management Order unintentionally struck out claim
5th May 2022View ArticleKatherine Anderson reviews Mendy v Motorola Solutions UK Ltd and Others [2022] EAT 47, a case in which we are reminded that failure to adequately particuliarise a claim does not mean that it is not being pursued.
-
EAT confirms a claim cannot be brought for a quantum meruit under the unlawful deductions from wages jurisdiction...
25th Feb 2022View Article...but an employee may have a good claim in the ordinary courts. Katherine Anderson reviews Abellio East Midlands Ltd v Mr K Thomas [2022] EAT 20, a case in which an employee started a new role for their employer before details of the new salary had been agreed.
-
Two differently constituted tribunals reached different conclusions on the same compulsory retirement policy – but neither made an error of law
7th Oct 2021View ArticleKatherine Anderson analyses The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Professor Paul Ewart EA-2020-000128-RN, which highlights that proportionality assessment means it is possible for different ETs to reach different conclusions when considering the same measure adopted by the same employer in respect of the same aims.
-
Reasonable adjustments claims: PCPs are not designed to be ‘traps for the unwary’
3rd Sep 2021View ArticleKatherine Anderson considers Mrs A Martin v City and County of Swansea: EA-2020-000460-AT (Previously UKEAT/0253/20/AT), a case which confirms the importance of properly identifying PCPs in reasonable adjustments claims, whilst deterring respondents’ lawyers from taking overly technical points on pleading.
-
Is mere suspicion of guilt enough to dismiss a teacher because of safeguarding concerns?
3rd Sep 2021View ArticleKatherine Anderson analyses the Court of Session's decision in L v K [2021] CSIH 35, a case involving a scenario which practitioners may have encountered before among employers concerned with the safeguarding of children.
-
Was a claimant prevented from pursuing a personal injury claim in the civil courts for abuse of the court process?
3rd Sep 2021View ArticleKatherine Anderson examines Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources Ltd [2021] EWHC 2418 (QB), the latest in a line of claims where an employee whose claim is compromised in the ET, finds it is then struck out in civil proceedings for abuse of the court’s process.
-
Can a claimant who has not paid her taxes succeed in a claim for wrongful or unfair dismissal?
7th Jul 2021View ArticleKatherine Anderson analyses Robinson v His Highness Sheikh Khalid Bin Saqr Al-Qasimi [2021] EWCA Civ 862, a case which highlights the key principles to be applied where an employer raises a defence of illegality, a potential defence which is often considered by employers in disputes over employee status where tax and national insurance have not been paid on the basis that the claimant was an employee.
-
What is “conduct extending over a period” and how and when should that question be determined?
8th Apr 2021View ArticleL v 1) X 2) Z & 3) E UKEAT/0080/20/RN
Employment law barrister Katherine Anderson reviews L v 1) X 2) Z & 3) E UKEAT/0080/20/RN and examines the principles considered by the EAT in determining whether there was “conduct extending over a period” for the purposes of section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
-
Can a Tribunal use the “but for” test to decide whether a claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability?
3rd Aug 2020View ArticleEmployment law barrister, Katherine Anderson analyses the case of Robinson v Department for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 859 (7th July 2020).
-
Attending a court to give evidence for the employer is not ‘‘work’’ for the purposes of the ‘furlough’ scheme
3rd Jul 2020View Article3PB's employment law barrister Katherine Anderson reviews the case of Fottles v Bourne Leisure.
-
Disability discrimination claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments? – Rakova v London West Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT/0043/19/LA
1st May 2020View ArticleRakova v London North West Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT/0043/19/LA
Employees can often complain where they feel that their managers are not giving them the tools they need to do their jobs efficiently, effectively or productively. How does that situation relate to a disability discrimination claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments? This decision provides some guidance on the approach to be taken by the Tribunals in claims of disability discrimination by reason of a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
-
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – how does it fit with the existing law on lay-offs and short-time working?
7th Apr 2020View ArticleCoronavirus Job Retention Scheme – how does it fit with the existing law on lay-offs and short-time working?
-
Long term disability benefits: it all depends on the contract
3rd Mar 2020View ArticleLong term disability benefits: it all depends on the contract. Katherine Anderson on ICTS (UK) Limited v VISRAM [2020] EWCA Civ 202
-
Reasonable adjustments – Is it relevant that the employee didn’t mention them?
7th Feb 2020View ArticleReasonable adjustments – Is it relevant that the employee didn’t mention them? Katherine Anderson analyses Shah v TIAA Ltd UKEAT/0180/19/BA, following her successful representation of the respondent employer in this appeal before the EAT.
-
Legal advice privilege
8th Nov 2019View ArticleLegal advice privilege: Katherine Anderson analyses Curless v Shell International Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1710
-
The implications of Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker UKEAT/0241/16/RN on employer liability for acts of victimisation
13th Apr 2017View Article3PB Employment Barrister Katherine Anderson examines the implications of Peninsula v Baker on employer liability for acts of victimisation. Katherine Anderson examines if an employer can escape "scot-free" from liability for an act of victimisation if it is 'astute enough' to instruct an innocent third party – or employee - to carry it out.
-
-
Recommendations Katherine Anderson is a well-respected education law barrister who specialises in special educational needs and discrimination law cases. Her client base includes individuals such as parents, young people, and students, and educational institutions from secondary schools all the way up to universities.
Strengths: "She is always helpful and friendly and puts clients at ease."
"Katherine Anderson's knowledge of the health and social care sectors is second to none."
"Katherine is knowledgeable and a pleasure to work with."
Chambers UK 2025/Education/London BarKatherine Anderson is a strong advocate who enjoys a varied caseload which covers employment and education law. She is active in discrimination claims and EAT appeals.
Strengths: "She is very able in court, concise and provides well-thought-through written work. I highly recommend her."
"Katherine has phenomenal attention to detail and technical knowledge."
"Katherine is a superb advocate and my personal choice for complex EAT cases."
"Katherine is reliable and tenacious in how she advances her advocacy."
Chambers UK 2025/Employment/Western BarStrengths: “Katherine was very helpful. I would recommend Katherine to colleagues.”
“Katherine is a very skilled advocate with substantial legal analytical skills.”
“Katherine's very responsive; she provided particularly useful written submissions, and gave helpful advice in relation to strategy.”
Chambers UK 2024/Employment/Western BarStrengths: “She is diligent and has great attention to detail.”
“She is technically excellent and a great advocate.”
Chambers UK 2023/Employment/Western BarStrengths: "She has excellent attention to detail on difficult cases and responds extremely promptly." "She is diligent and has very great attention to detail. We consider her a very technically adept lawyer, who can really drive down into conflicting case law."
Chambers UK 2022/Employment/Western BarStrengths: "She is extremely thorough and detailed in her preparation and advice. She is meticulous in her attention to detail and excellent for complex cases."
Chambers UK 2021/Employment/Western Bar'Katherine has good attention to detail, is diligent, and has a good client manner.'
Legal 500 2025/Employment/Leading Junior/Western Circuit‘Katherine is extremely personable and knowledgeable instilling confidence in both instructing solicitors and clients. She goes above and beyond in supporting instructing solicitors with any issues that may arise during the course of proceedings and is eloquent in her advocacy skills balancing the need to address the law and have the clients position heard.’
Legal 500 2025/Education/Leading Junior/London Bar‘Katherine is forensic in her approach. She looks at all angles and considers all options. A very diligent advocate. ’
Legal 500 2024/Education/Leading Junior/London Bar‘Katherine is extremely bright, client-friendly and meticulous in her preparation and written work. ’
Legal 500 2023/Education/Leading Junior/London Bar‘Katherine has a wealth of experience in SEND appeals and is very thorough in her approach; she is a robust advocate and her preparation is always meticulous.’
Legal 500 2022/Education/Leading Junior/London Bar‘Highly intelligent, thorough in her work and is a tenacious barrister.’
Legal 500 2021/Education/Leading Individual/London Bar
Expand recommendations