Advertise on podcast: The BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community

What happens when an employee only discovers that a meeting is disciplinary in nature once it has started? Can an employee rely on the statutory right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing if they never actually requested a companion? In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, James Hockley and Rose Lim discuss the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Wolfe v Taka Mayfair Limited, which considers the statutory right to be accompanied under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. They explore why the EAT found that an employee must make a request for accompaniment before the statutory right is triggered, even where the employee was not aware that a meeting was disciplinary in nature. They also consider the EAT’s observations on requests for accompaniment made during a meeting, and the distinction between the statutory requirements of section 10 ERA 1999 and the Acas Code of Practice. Listeners will gain practical insight into: When the statutory right to be accompanied arises;Why an employee must expressly request accompaniment;What to do if a meeting unexpectedly becomes disciplinary;The importance of following fair disciplinary procedures; andPractical lessons for employers and employee advisers. For employment lawyers, HR professionals, employers and employees, this episode provides a useful guide to the statutory right to be accompanied and the practical implications of Wolfe v Taka Mayfair Limited. Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in to The BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected]  Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected] Phone: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ James Hockley https://uk.linkedin.com/in/james-hockley-9060a685 Rose Lim https://uk.linkedin.com/in/rose-l-40a345b0 Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/

What happens when a £100,000 compensation award becomes worth more than £1.7 million but the Acas uplift falls from 25% to just 2.5%? And can a tribunal really reduce an uplift when the employer's conduct remains just as serious? In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, employment lawyers Ed Duthie and Samantha Prosser explore the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh, an important case on Acas uplifts, proportionality and grossing up compensation for tax. They discuss how a claim brought in 2012 ultimately resulted in a compensation award of more than £1.7 million, while the Acas uplift was reduced from 25% to just 2.5%. They examine why the EAT upheld the tribunal's decision and how the substantial increase in compensation affected the assessment of what was just and equitable. Ed and Samantha unpack when an Acas uplift can be reconsidered following an appeal, including the principle of necessary implication where an issue is closely connected to matters being remitted to a tribunal. They also consider the tension between the percentage-based nature of the Acas uplift and the need for an overall award to remain proportionate. The episode also explores the tribunal's approach to grossing up compensation for tax, and why a practical solution may be appropriate where the tax treatment of different elements of an award is uncertain. Listeners will gain practical guidance on: When an Acas uplift can be reconsidered following an appealHow the size of a compensation award can affect the percentage upliftWhy a higher compensation award does not necessarily result in a higher Acas upliftHow proportionality can influence the tribunal's assessment of an upliftThe principle of necessary implication and connected remedy issuesHow tribunals may approach grossing up where the tax position is uncertain For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into how tribunals approach Acas uplifts, high-value discrimination claims, remedy appeals and tax issues, and highlights the importance of considering how different elements of a remedy award interact. Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in to The BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected]  Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected] Phone: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Ed Duthie https://uk.linkedin.com/in/edward-duthie-795a00106 Samantha Prosser https://uk.linkedin.com/in/samanthacprosser

When can an employer be held liable for the actions of an independent contractor? And when does a contractor become so closely integrated into a business that the relationship is considered akin to employment? In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, employment lawyers Emma Burroughs and Connie Berry explore the Court of Appeal's decision in Burger v Risk Solutions and JD Wetherspoon, an important case on vicarious liability and the distinction between employees and independent contractors. They discuss how a customer was seriously injured after being assaulted by two door supervisors employed by Risk Solutions at a Wetherspoon pub, why Wetherspoon was ultimately found not to be vicariously liable, and how the courts assessed the relationship between the security contractors and the pub company. Emma and Connie unpack the two-stage test for vicarious liability, examining when a relationship may be considered akin to employment and the importance of the close connection test when assessing whether a tort was committed in the course of employment. Listeners will gain practical guidance on: When an employer can be held vicariously liable for the actions of an independent contractorHow the two-stage test for vicarious liability applies in practiceWhy the level of control and integration within a business can be significantThe circumstances in which a contractor may be considered akin to an employeePractical lessons for employers who regularly engage long-term or embedded contractors For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into the risks associated with contractor arrangements and the circumstances in which businesses may face vicarious liability for the actions of individuals who are not directly employed by them. Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected]  Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected] Phone: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Emma Burroughs https://www.linkedin.com/in/emma-burroughs-78342a168/ Connie Berry https://www.linkedin.com/in/connie-berry-2513a036

How do you prove discrimination when there is no direct evidence? And when does the burden of proof shift to the employer? In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, employment lawyers Rose Lim and Clare Brereton explore the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Clifton Diocese v Parker, an important case on the burden of proof in religion or belief discrimination claims. They discuss the facts behind the case, including the dismissal of a senior finance employee following a dispute over flexible working, the allegations of direct discrimination and harassment based on her lack of Catholic faith, and the Employment Tribunal's approach to the burden of proof. Rose and Clare unpack the two-stage test under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, examining what a claimant must establish before the burden shifts to the employer, why the Employment Tribunal was found to have incorrectly combined the two stages, and the importance of identifying a clear link between the alleged discriminatory treatment and the relevant protected characteristic. Listeners will gain practical guidance on: How the burden of proof operates in discrimination claimsWhat claimants need to establish at the first stage of the two-stage testWhen and how the burden shifts to the employerWhy tribunals must consider each alleged act of discrimination individuallyThe importance of identifying a clear connection between the treatment and the relevant protected characteristicWhy unfair or wrongful treatment does not necessarily amount to discriminationHow employers can approach cases where the burden of proof has shifted to themThe risks of taking a scattergun approach to pleading discrimination claims For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into the practical application of the burden of proof in discrimination claims and the importance of keeping the two stages of the statutory test distinct when assessing whether discrimination has occurred. Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in to The BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected]  Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected] Phone: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Rose Lim ​​https://www.linkedin.com/in/rose-l-40a345b0/ Clare Brereton https://www.linkedin.com/in/clare-brereton-nee-taylor-36291046/

When does a "protected conversation" lose its protection? And can the way an employer handles a settlement offer come back to bite them? In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, employment lawyers Amanda Steadman and Emma Burroughs explore the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Tarbuc v Martello Piling Limited, an important case concerning the scope and limits of protected conversations under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They discuss the background to the dispute, which arose after the claimant sought payment of a contractual bonus, and how a subsequent protected conversation led to an offer for him to leave the business. Following his dismissal after a redundancy process, the claimant brought claims including ordinary unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker. Amanda and Emma unpack the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal's decisions, including the Tribunal's error in treating the section 111A protection as applying to claims beyond ordinary unfair dismissal. They explore the concept of improper behaviour, the importance of considering the cumulative circumstances surrounding a protected conversation, and why factors such as short-notice meetings, the absence of a companion and the time given to consider an offer may be relevant. They also discuss the risks of threats or guarantees of dismissal, covert recordings and the practical steps employers can take to conduct protected conversations more safely. Listeners will gain practical guidance on: When section 111A protection applies and the claims it does not coverWhat may amount to improper behaviour during a protected conversationHow the circumstances surrounding a meeting can affect whether protection is lostThe risks of making threats or guarantees about dismissal if a settlement offer is rejectedHow employers can approach protected conversations cautiously and minimise the risk of the discussions being admitted in evidenceThe importance of giving employees reasonable notice, time to consider offers and the opportunity to have a companion For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into the practical limits of protected conversations and the importance of carefully managing both the substance and circumstances of settlement discussions. Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected]  Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected] Phone: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Amanda Steadman https://www.linkedin.com/in/amanda-steadman-7900a110/   Emma Burroughs  https://www.linkedin.com/in/emma-burroughs-78342a168/

A dismissed employee looking to recover damages for lost permanent health insurance benefits is faced with having to bring a High Court claim, or cap their claim at £25,000 in the Employment Tribunal. But does a claim for unlawful deductions from wages provide a potential route forward?  In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, Nick Wilcox and Theo Nicou explore the Inner House of the Court of Session's decision in McMahon v AXA ICAS Ltd, an important case concerning permanent health insurance (PHI) benefits, unlawful deductions from wages and the effect of dismissal on contractual entitlements. They discuss why the claimant became entitled to PHI benefits after a period of ill health, and how an administrative error meant that the employer had failed to put the relevant insurance policy in place. Following the claimant's dismissal on grounds of ill health capability, the dispute centred on whether she could claim PHI benefits as “wages” beyond the date of termination. Nick and Theo unpack the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal's decisions before examining why the Inner House took a different approach, finding that the employer could potentially be liable for PHI payments as “wages” after dismissal. They explore the Court's consideration of collateral contractual obligations, implied terms preventing dismissal for the purpose of avoiding benefit obligations, and the possibility that the employment contract continued following a wrongful dismissal. Listeners will gain practical guidance on: When permanent health insurance benefits may continue after dismissalHow PHI provisions can operate as contractual obligations owed directly by an employerThe distinction between wages and damages for breach of contractThe circumstances in which an employer may be prevented from dismissing an employee to avoid contractual benefit obligationsThe potential implications of the decision for employers and employment contracts For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into the interaction between dismissal, contractual benefits and unlawful deductions from wages, and highlights the importance of carefully drafted PHI provisions in employment contracts. Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected]  Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected] Phone: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Nick Wilcox https://www.linkedin.com/in/nick-wilcox-48915526/ Theo Nicou https://www.linkedin.com/in/theonicou/

How should FCA-regulated firms deal with non-financial misconduct? When can conduct outside work affect an employee's fitness and propriety? In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, Tom McLaughlin is joined by Nick Wilcox, Partner at BDBF, and James Green, Partner at Burges Salmon, to discuss the FCA's new rules and guidance on non-financial misconduct which come into force in September 2026. They explore why the FCA has introduced the new regime following recent tribunal decisions, when conduct outside work can become a regulatory issue, and how firms should approach allegations involving bullying, harassment, discrimination and misconduct in employees' private lives. The discussion also examines workplace social events and social media, managers' responsibilities, regulatory references, and the interaction between the FCA's new guidance and wider employment law reforms. Listeners will gain practical guidance on: The FCA's new non-financial misconduct rulesFitness and propriety assessmentsInvestigating misconduct inside and outside the workplaceSocial media, workplace events and managers' responsibilitiesThe practical implications for FCA-regulated firms and employees For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel, compliance teams and FCA-regulated firms, this episode provides valuable insight into navigating the FCA's new approach to non-financial misconduct while balancing regulatory obligations with employment law risk. Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBFThank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments.For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected] Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected]: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/Sign up to our newsletter:www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Guest InfoTom McLaughlin https://uk.linkedin.com/in/emplwyrtom Nick Wilcox https://uk.linkedin.com/in/nick-wilcox-48915526 James Green https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jamesgreenemploymentlawyer

Can an employer cap a bonus after telling an employee they've earned it? When does a bonus become a legally enforceable entitlement? In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, employment lawyers Ben Cowdry and Esmat Faiz explore the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Chandrashekarappa v Wipro Ltd (2026), an important case on bonus schemes and unlawful deductions from wages. They discuss how the employer introduced a new sales bonus scheme without issuing a formal policy, why an employee expected a bonus of more than £500,000 only to be told it was capped at $150,000, and how the absence of clear written terms ultimately proved decisive. Ben and Esmat unpack the Employment Tribunal's original decision before examining why the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employee's entitlement had already crystallised, preventing the employer from imposing additional conditions after the event. Listeners will gain practical guidance on: When a bonus becomes a legally enforceable entitlementWhy clear, written bonus policies are essentialThe risks of introducing new conditions after a bonus has been approvedHow the law on unlawful deductions from wages applies to bonus paymentsPractical lessons for employers designing and implementing incentive schemes For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into drafting and administering bonus schemes while reducing the risk of costly disputes. Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected]  Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected] Phone: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Ben Cowdry Ben advises both employers and employees on contentious and non-contentious matters. Ben’s experience ranged from negotiating severance packages and advising on disciplinary matters to pursuing Employment Tribunal claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. Ben also has experience in advising on and drafting employment contracts and workplace policies. Ben enjoys negotiating favourable outcomes for his clients, whether through alternative dispute resolution or litigation. linkedin.com/in/ben-cowdry-7548a8196 Esmat Faiz Esmat is an experienced solicitor who advises senior employees and employers on complex and sensitive workplace issues, delivering clear, strategic guidance to achieve practical and positive outcomes. She provides guidance to employees on disciplinary processes, grievances, workplace investigations and negotiated exits, always ensuring her clients feel supported and confident throughout challenging situations. Esmat has extensive experience handling whistleblowing claims and discrimination matters across a wide range of grounds, including disability, age, pregnancy and maternity, sex and race, both prior to and in the course of Employment Tribunal claims. She was promoted to Senior Associate in 2026 in recognition of her technical excellence and client care. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/esmat-faiz-1348502a

When fundamental rights collide in the workplace, how do courts decide who wins? In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, Partner Clare Brereton and Senior Associate Leigh Janes examine the high-profile case of Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd. The dispute – an actress dismissed after a social media backlash over a historic post expressing her religious belief that homosexuality is a sin – puts two protected characteristics in direct conflict. But Clare and Leigh’s focus goes beyond the headlines. They dive into the high-stakes procedural battle that followed: Miss Omooba’s attempt to reopen the Court of Appeal's refusal of permission to appeal by invoking the landmark decision in Higgs v Farmor's School. Listeners will gain insights into: The "clash of rights" framework and how courts approach competing protected characteristicsThe "reason why" test in direct discrimination claimsThe exceptionally high threshold for reopening final appeal decisionsThe practical implications for employers managing similar conflicts in the workplaceWhen religion and belief collide, the legal path is rarely straightforward. This is how to navigate the fallout. Contact BDBFWe’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected] Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected]: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Guest Info Clare Brereton linkedin.com/in/clare-brereton-nee-taylor-36291046/ Clare Brereton is a partner at BDBF who specialises in high stakes disputes and strategic workplace advice for senior executives and employers on complex workplace disputes, including those involving partnerships and LLPs. Leigh Janes linkedin.com/in/leigh-janes-nee-leach-7b472890/ Leigh is ranked by the 2026 edition of Chambers and Partners as an “Associate to Watch” and advises employers and employees on all aspects of employment law across a wide range of industries and sectors including financial services, recruitment, and hospitality.

When NHS staff blow the whistle, the consequences can be devastating. How can healthcare professionals raise serious concerns while protecting their careers? In this special episode of The BDBF Podcast, recorded for World Whistleblowers' Day, employment law partners Clare Brereton and Samantha Prosser discuss the realities of whistleblowing in the NHS – from the legal protections available to the practical challenges of navigating workplace retaliation. Samantha unpacks the legal definition of a "protected disclosure" and the statutory safeguards shielding whistleblowers from detriment and dismissal. Clare and Samantha examine the hurdles whistleblowers commonly face: proving that detrimental treatment was linked to their disclosure, and the difficulties of finding alternative employment after raising concerns. Listeners will gain practical guidance on: The importance of documenting concerns in writingUsing the correct internal channelsMaintaining a professional tone throughoutSeeking legal advice at an early stageFor employment lawyers, healthcare workers and in-house counsel, this episode delivers critical insights into managing the complexities of NHS disclosures. Contact BDBFThank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected] Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected]: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Clare Breretonlinkedin.com/in/clare-brereton-nee-taylor-36291046/Clare Brereton is a partner at BDBF who specialises in high stakes disputes and strategic workplace advice for senior executives and employers on complex workplace disputes, including those involving partnerships and LLPs. Samantha Prosserhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/samanthacprosser/Partner at BDBF, Samantha has extensive litigation experience in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. She specialises in whistleblowing and sex and disability discrimination claims, with particular expertise advising Consultants in the NHS and private practice.

Can Blair's 1997 reforms help the employment law sector prepare for the forthcoming ERA changes? In this episode, host Tom McLaughlin is joined by BDBF managing partner Gareth Brahams to draw a direct line between Blair's 1997 employment law reforms and the major changes set to arrive with the Employment Rights Act in 2027. Drawing on three decades of practice, Gareth traces the parallels between then and now: the reduction of unfair dismissal qualifying periods, rising compensation caps, and the introduction of Working Time Regulations – and what they can tell us about what's coming next. Listeners will gain insights into: The scope and background of the Employment Rights Act reforms coming later this year and in 2027Practical implications for employers and employees, including changes to dismissal rights and compensationBuilding organisational capacity and adapting to evolving case lawNavigating political uncertainty and preparing for further legislative developmentsWith a generation-defining shift in employment law on the horizon, looking to the past might be our best way forward. Contact BDBFThank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments.For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform.We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected] Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected]: +44(0)20 3828 0350Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/Sign up to our newsletter:www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Gareth Brahams linkedin.com/in/garethbrahams Gareth Brahams is the managing partner at BDBF and a recognised leader in the field of employment law. He has nearly 30 years of experience in employment law advising senior executives and other employees in high value/high stakes cases, large and small employers, partners and members of LLPs.

Can you withdraw a job offer once it’s been accepted? Lessons from Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems LTD. In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, partners Paula Chan and Gareth Brahams discuss the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd. This case explores what "reasonable notice" means when a job offer is withdrawn after a contract is formed but before the first day of work and draws out the key distinction between “conditions precedent” and “conditions subsequent”. Listeners will gain insights into: The factual background and the EAT’s decision in Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems.The crucial distinction between conditions "precedent" and conditions "subsequent."Why statutory minimum notice periods do not act as a ceiling for "reasonable notice."The risks of resigning from a current role before a new contract is fully signed and documented.Practical steps for employers to manage offer withdrawals and notice obligations.Best practices for candidates navigating the gap between offer acceptance and their start date.For employment lawyers and HR leaders, this is a tactical guide to managing the "resignation gap" and avoiding a pre-employment notice trap. Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in to The BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected]  Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected] Phone: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Paula Chan https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulachan/ Specialist employment lawyer advising senior executives, partners, and employers, with experience in high-profile employee exits and significant disputes involving whistleblowing, breach of contract, and workplace discrimination. Gareth Brahams linkedin.com/in/garethbrahams Employment lawyer who has fought and won some of the biggest cases in whistleblowing, discrimination, restrictive covenants and stress at work claims.

Is the UK finally moving toward a "bounty" system for whistleblowers? In this episode of the BDBF Podcast, Partner Claire Dawson is joined by US expert Mary Inman to explore whistleblower reward programs. Under the US model, individuals who report wrongdoing to the authorities can receive between 10–30% of recovered funds – a powerful incentive that has already helped uncover billions in corporate fraud. Claire and Mary discuss how whistleblowers in the UK may look across the Atlantic to secure their financial futures through reward systems that have global reach. From the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to HMRC’s newly revamped tax-evasion scheme, they unpick this shifting cultural tide and ask: what does the future of rewards for whistleblowing mean for culture and practice in the UK? Strategic Insights: The US rewards system focuses on “intel” while UK protection for whistleblowers still focuses on litigation. How UK whistleblowers may access life-changing US bounties anonymously.What the UK’s shift toward a "bounty" model for tax evasion may mean for other regulators in this country. This episode is a must-listen for the lawyers and leaders navigating the global whistleblower landscape. Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBFThank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected] Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected]: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/Sign up to our newsletter:www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/ Guest InfoMary Inmanhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-inman-81229/Mary Inman is a partner at Whistleblower Partners. She has 30 years of experience representing whistleblowers in the U.S. under the False Claims Act, as well as the SEC, CFTC, IRS, FinCEN, and NHTSA/DOT whistleblower programs.

How long can whistleblowers continue to claim dismissal as a "detriment" against an individual colleague? Whistleblowing law in the UK is at a pivotal crossroads. In May this year, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal in Rice v Wicked Vision, in which the future of Timis v Osipov is in the firing line.   In this episode of the BDBF Podcast, Amanda Steadman is joined by Bruce Carr KC and Managing Partner Gareth Brahams who both acted for Mr Osipov, to dive into what the appeal in Rice v Wicked Vision means for personal liability in the workplace. Together, they unpick the "detriment of dismissal" loophole, tracking the legacy of Timis v Osipov and examining the contentious boundary between an "instruction to dismiss" and the "act of dismissal."  Listeners will also gain insights into: How the Timis v Osipov precedent continues to influence detriment claims.The statutory tension between Section 47B detriment and Part X unfair dismissal.Balancing the strict wording of the law with the need to protect whistleblowers.What the Rice decision means for the future of high-value whistleblowing claims.Speculation on a Supreme Court appeal and the long-term implications for employment law. Drawing on their extensive experience, this episode offers essential strategic insights for employment lawyers and HR leaders navigating these shifting legal waters. Cases discussed: Timis & Anor v Osipov & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 2321: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2018/2321Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1466: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/1466BDBF’s briefing on Wicked Vision can be accessed here: https://www.bdbf.co.uk/employers-continue-to-be-vicariously-liable-for-detriment-of-dismissal-claims-brought-by-employee-whistleblowers-for-now-at-least/ Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF. Contact BDBFThank you for tuning in to The BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected] Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected]: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/Sign up to our newsletter:www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/

Was the 12-Month Non-Compete Agreement Enforceable? Analysing the High Court Ruling in Tom James UK Limited v Max Potter. In this episode of the BDBF Podcast, Tom McLaughlin and Jamie Barton explore the headline employment law dispute Tom James UK Limited v Max Potter, focusing on the enforceability of non-compete clauses, restrictive covenants and the risks of overly restrictive post-termination restraints. The episode follows Max Potter, a mid-level salesperson who found himself at the centre of a legal dispute after his employer attempted to enforce a 12-month non-compete clause following his resignation.  Tom and Jamie walk listeners through the events leading up to the court case, illustrating how aggressive restrictive covenants can backfire and the real-world consequences for both employers and employees. Listeners will gain insights into: How non-compete clauses and restrictive covenants work in practiceThe impact of harsh disciplinary measures on the enforceabilityThe High Court’s scrutiny of the 12-month non-compete clauseLegal and reputational risks for businesses enforcing overly broad post-termination restrictionsPractical steps employers and HR teams can take to protect their interests while remaining fair and compliant Packed with strategic insight, this episode is essential listening for employment lawyers, HR professionals, business leaders, and anyone managing employee departures or restrictive covenants. Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in to The BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes.  Drop us a line [email protected]  Find out more:Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/Email: [email protected] Phone: +44(0)20 3828 0350 Connect with us:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/brahams-dutt-badrick-french-llp/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/BDBFLLP/ Sign up to our newsletter: www.bdbf.co.uk/newsletter-signup/