Stefan Brochwicz-Lewinski

Employment

Stefan has particular experience of: complex discrimination and equal pay claims; restrictive covenants and employment injunctions; TUPE (transfer of undertakings); protective awards; unfair and wrongful dismissal; pension rights; whistleblowing and protected disclosures; trade union recognition and industrial action; breaches of confidence; commercial agencies; deductions from wages. His clients range from individual employees to high profile sports personalities to established plcs and public bodies. His commercial litigation experience provides an added dimension when dealing with cases involving company/director/shareholder issues.

Stefan combines renowned legal analysis and courtroom skills with clear and commercial advice. He appears in all courts from first instance to appellate level, including in the High Court in high value cases, restrictive covenant proceedings and industrial action disputes.

Stefan also specialises in High Court employment-related disputes in particular; restrictive covenant, employee competition and confidential information matters. Stefan regularly advises and acts on short notice in matters where urgent injunctions are required or where cases are listed for expedited trial.  Clients include large, established corporations as well as smaller local businesses.

His recent experience includes:

Equal Pay

– Copple & others v Littlewoods – Long-running litigation, representing the Respondent company in multi-million pound proceedings over pension rights brought by several hundred Claimants. Multiple hearings both at first instance and on appeal, most recently in the Court of Appeal on issues of causation and remedy under European and domestic equal pay law: [2012] IRLR 121.

– Gibbons & others v JJB Sports plc – Equal value proceedings including issues as to the adequacy of Joint Evaluation Studies.

– Slaven v University of South Manchester NHS Trust – equal value proceedings turning on the proper application of the Agenda for Change job evaluation process.

Employee Competition and Misuse of Confidential Information

– Basic Solutions v Robert Sands – Restrictive covenant injunctive proceedings in the High Court (Eady J) in which it was held that: 12 months was too long a period of restriction to be enforceable; the balance of convenience favoured the ex-employee where he stood to suffer clear provable loss compared to the speculative loss claimed by his ex-employer; the public interest benefit of the manufactured product involved was a relevant factor when considering competition; the fact that the employee produced a product after his employment with the same function as that produced during his employment did not lead necessarily to the inference that the products were the same or he had used confidential information.

– Oscar Associates v Circle Recruitment – High Court proceedings between recruitment companies arising from breach of covenants and “employee-poaching”.

– Walker Fire v Jackson Fire & M Grocott – Emergency injunctive proceedings on behalf of company to restrain breach of employment covenants and use of confidential information.

– Bentley Motors v Gibson – Acting for company seeking emergency injunctive relief together with search and delete orders in respect of electronic devices.

– Peninsula Business Services v Nori – Acting for company seeking emergency injunctive relief to restrain the misuse of confidential information.

– Numerous other claims seeking injunctive relief / imaging-deletion orders / damages / accounts of profit – arising from breach of covenants, misuse of confidential information, and/or diversion of business.

Unfair Dismissal

– Garside & Laycock Ltd v Booth – acting on appeal in a case of dismissal for refusal to accept a pay cut – submissions described as “eloquent, cogent and persuasive” by Langstaff J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal ([2011] IRLR 735, para 27).

– Various cases v Barclays Bank plc – acting for Barclays Bank in a suite of separate cases in which summary dismissals during redundancy consultation periods were found to be fair.

– Sloane & 20 others v TVR Engineering Ltd – multiple redundancy litigation.

– Multiple cases for large organisations in the retail sector, banking, manufacturing, health sector, and public employers.

Discrimination
– Banks v HM Revenue & Customs – significant disability discrimination claim resulting in costs in favour of the Respondent.

– Dr V v Pennine Acute NHS Trust – high value race discrimination proceedings concerning a specialist consultant doctor.

– Nijhar v University of Ulster – religious and political discrimination proceedings in the Fair Employment Tribunal in Belfast.

– Williams v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust – high profile proceedings involving alleged anti-semitism.

– Green v Walker Sime – sex discrimination claim in which maternity leave was found not to have resulted in the Claimant’s selection for redundancy.

– Dayal v (nationally renowned financial advisers) – high value discrimination case brought by a London financial adviser.

– Khatoon v Pennine Acute NHS Trust – race/religious discrimination case challenging work clothing requirements in the NHS.

Trade Union law and Industrial Action

– Robert McBride Ltd v GMB – taking injunctive proceedings to restrain strike action.

– Unite the Union v A Company – acting for a major retailer in proceedings concerning trade union recognition under s178 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for the purposes of TUPE. Union claim struck out.

Transfer of Undertakings

– Thorburn & 29 others v GM Rail Services Ltd & others – claims for protective awards and other payments following various service provision changes.

– Smith & others v Tameside MBC & Live Nation (Venues) UK Ltd – acting for Tameside MBC in claims involving a dispute between Respondents as to whether there was a TUPE transfer of staff upon closure of a theatre.

– Inex Home Improvements v Hodkins & others – appeal (EAT) case concerning whether a standard lay off clause in the construction industry served to exclude the operation of the TUPE Regs.

Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures

– Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] IRLR 544 – (Court of Appeal) whistleblowing claim concerning claimed acts of whistleblowing with a prison educational environment.

– Quinn v Talar Made Ltd – whistleblowing claim including ET proceedings for interim injunctive relief.

– Constable v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions – claim of unfair dismissal as a result of a protected disclosure which included a successful appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s refusal to order further particulars (UKEAT/0156/10).

– Poland v NW Ambulance Service NHS Trust – Whistleblowing and discrimination claim arising from internal procedures.

Employment Tribunal Procedure/Costs
– Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] IRLR 544 – Court of Appeal proceedings in a whistleblowing claim – now the leading recent authority on the principles of the remission of cases following appeal.

– Murray v Standard Life – Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings concerning when a claim should be struck out for failure to comply with earlier orders of the Tribunal.

– Hibbett v Beauty Source Ltd t/a St Tropez – indemnity costs against a Respondent whose defence of unfair dismissal proceedings was found to be unreasonable.

– Parkin v Colourscape – costs award in sex discrimination proceedings against a Respondent found to have relied unreasonably on a jurisdictional defence, upheld by the EAT.

– Nolan v Property Growth Dynamics Ltd – costs award against a Claimant found to have invented allegations of sex discrimination.

Notable Cases

Specialist areas with cases of interest include:

APPEALS PROCEDURE

• Jafri v Lincoln College [2015] QB 781 – Leading Court of Appeal authority on the remission of cases on appeal back to the Employment Tribunal. (Also reported at [2014] 3 WLR 933, [2014] 3 All ER 709, [2014] ICR 920, [2014] IRLR 544.) View the Case Here.

EQUAL PAY

• Copple & others v Littlewoods [2012] 2 All ER 97. – Long-running litigation, representing the Respondent company in multi-million pound equal value proceedings over pension rights brought by several hundred Claimants. Multiple hearings both at first instance and on appeal, latterly in the Court of Appeal on issues of causation and remedy under European and domestic equal pay law: Also reported at: [2012] 1 CMLR 36; [2012] ICR 354; [2012] IRLR 121; [2011] Eq LR 1271; [2011] Pens LR 443.
  View the Court of Appeal decision Here.
  View the E.A.T. decision Here.
• Gibbons & others v JJB Sports plc – Equal value proceedings including issues as to the adequacy of Joint Evaluation Studies.

EMPLOYEE COMPETITION AND MISUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

• Basic Solutions v Robert Sands – Restrictive covenant injunctive proceedings in the High Court (Eady J) in which it was held that: 12 months was too long a period of restriction to be enforceable; the balance of convenience favoured the ex-employee where he stood to suffer clear provable loss compared to the speculative loss claimed by his ex-employer; the public interest benefit of the manufactured product involved was a relevant factor when considering competition; the fact that the employee produced a product after his employment with the same function as that produced during his employment did not lead necessarily to the inference that the products were the same or he had used confidential information. View the Case Here
• Oscar Associates v Circle Recruitment – High Court proceedings between recruitment companies arising from breach of covenants and “employee-poaching”.
• Walker Fire v Jackson Fire & M Grocott – Emergency injunctive proceedings on behalf of the company to restrain breach of employment covenants and use of confidential information.
• Bentley Motors v Gibson – Acting for company seeking emergency injunctive relief together with search and delete orders in respect of electronic devices.
• Peninsula Business Services v Nori – Acting for company seeking emergency injunctive relief to restrain the misuse of confidential information.
• Numerous other claims seeking injunctive relief / imaging-deletion orders / damages / accounts of profit – arising from breach of covenants, misuse of confidential information, and/or diversion of business.

TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS (TUPE)

• Inex Home Improvements Ltd v Hodgkins & others [2016] IRLR 13, [2016] ICR 71 – Leading Employment Appeal Tribunal authority holding that the temporary lay off of workers did not prevent their transfer on a TUPE Service Provision Change; also providing guidance as to how the TUPE SPC provisions are to be interpreted. View the Case Here.
• CT Plus (Yorkshire) CIC v Lincs Road Car Ltd t/a Stagecoach (UKEAT/0035/16/DM) – Appeal case in which the decision that the establishment of a new commercial bus service in place of a contracted out service did not amount to a service provision change under TUPE.
• Thorburn & 29 others v GM Rail Services Ltd & others – claims for protective awards and other payments following various service provision changes.
• Smith & others v Tameside MBC & Live Nation (Venues) UK Ltd – acting for Tameside MBC in claims involving a dispute between Respondents as to whether there was a TUPE transfer of staff upon closure of a theatre.

UNFAIR DISMISSAL

• Garside & Laycock Ltd v Booth [2011] IRLR 735 – acting on appeal in a case of dismissal for refusal to accept a pay cut – submissions described as “eloquent, cogent and persuasive” by Langstaff J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. View Case Here.
• Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust v Mundangepfupfu (UKEAT/0109/15/DA) – Employment Tribunal Appeal authority on the proper application of Polkey principles in an NHS dismissal. View the Case Here.
• Various cases v Barclays Bank plc – acting for Barclays Bank in a suite of separate cases in which summary dismissals during redundancy consultation periods were found to be fair.

REDUNDANCY

• Stokes & others v City Link Ltd (in administration) – Representing several hundred claimants in claims for protective awards arising from the sudden collapse of the Respondent company.
• Sloane & 20 others v TVR Engineering Ltd – multiple redundancy litigation.

DISCRIMINATION

• PMI Ltd v Hodkinson & others (UKEAT/0134/15/LA) – Employment Appeal Tribunal authority on the principles to be applied in determining claims of discrimination and harassment under ss15 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010. View the Case here.
• Khatoon v Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust – Successfully representing an NHS Trust defend a challenge to the NHS “Bare below the Elbows” policy brought on religious discrimination grounds.
• Banks v HM Revenue & Customs – significant disability discrimination claim resulting in costs in favour of the Respondent.
• Dr V v Pennine Acute NHS Trust – high value race discrimination proceedings concerning a specialist consultant doctor.
• Nijhar v University of Ulster – religious and political discrimination proceedings in the Fair Employment Tribunal in Belfast.
• Williams v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust – high profile proceedings involving alleged anti-semitism.
• Green v Walker Sime – sex discrimination claim in which maternity leave was found not to have resulted in the Claimant’s selection for redundancy.

TRADE UNION LAW AND INDUSTRIAL ACTION

• Robert McBride Ltd v GMB – taking injunctive proceedings to restrain strike action.
• Unite the Union v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd – acting for Sainsbury’s in proceedings concerning trade union recognition under s178 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for the purposes of TUPE. Union claim struck out.

WHISTLEBLOWING/PROTECTED DISCLOSURES

• Parsons v Airplus International Ltd (UKEAT/0023/16/JOJ) – Representing the Respondent in the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the approach to be taken on an application for interim relief in a whistleblowing claim, affirming the principles of Taplin v Shippam Ltd. The whistleblowing claim then proceeded in the Tribunal where it was dismissed on all counts.
• Quinn v Talar Made Ltd – whistleblowing claim including ET proceedings for interim injunctive relief.
• Constable v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions – claim of unfair dismissal as a result of a protected disclosure which included a successful appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s refusal to order further particulars (UKEAT/0156/10).

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE/COSTS

• Drake International Systems Ltd & others v Blue Arrow Ltd [2016] ICR 445 –Key Employment Appeal Tribunal authority on whether additional compliance with the Early Conciliation procedures is mandatory when joining a new party to existing proceedings. View the Case here.
• Murray v Standard Life (UKEATS/0003/14/JW) – E.A.T. authority on whether to strike out a claim for breach of an unless order. View the Case here.
• Hibbett v Beauty Source Ltd t/a St Tropez – indemnity costs against a Respondent whose defence of unfair dismissal proceedings was found to be unreasonable.
• Parkin v Colourscape – costs award in sex discrimination proceedings against a Respondent found to have relied unreasonably on a jurisdictional defence, upheld by the EAT.
• Nolan v Property Growth Dynamics Ltd – costs award against a Claimant found to have invented allegations of sex discrimination.

Associations

Employment Lawyers Association

Commercial Bar Association

Education

LLB (Hons), Bristol University

Université de Caen, France – Demi Licence en Droit.

Awards

Wilfred Getz Scholar, Gray’s Inn

Prescribed Information

Stefan Brochwicz-Lewinski is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Stefan can be found here.

Stefan’s clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that he provides. Their contact details can be found here. It is most common for Stefan to undertake Court, Tribunal, and Mediation work for a fixed fee or brief fee plus refresher fees for subsequent days (or subsequent hours in the case of a mediation). Advisory work, paperwork and conferences are most commonly charged at an hourly rate (although it might be possible to agree fixed fees in individual cases). Stefan will typically return paperwork within 14-21 days.  However, professional commitments, complexity and volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.

Stefan also undertakes Direct Access work. This work is undertaken on a contractual basis, as agreed between the client and Stefan’s clerks. This is on fixed fee basis for a specific events such as a conference, advisory work, a hearing with additional hearing days (refreshers) or the drafting of specific documents. All work agreed to be undertaken by Stefan with the fixed fee cost will be clearly outlined in the direct access contract signed by the client and will be payable in full prior to the commencement of the work.