Rachael Levene

Employment

Rachael Levene accepts instructions in all areas of Employment Law. She also acts as a Mediator, having qualified as such in 2020.

In Employment Law, Rachael acts for both Claimants and Respondents. She provides advisory and drafting services on all areas of Employment Law. Rachael provides a professional and down-to-earth service.

Rachael also frequently appears in the civil courts on matters concerning discrimination in goods and services and related claims. Rachael has experience of complex cases at the Multi-Track level, and has successfully defended claims involving multiple Claimants.

She is a problem solver who combines intellectual rigour with a warm and friendly manner. This appealing combination has led to her receiving a wide variety of instructions in the following areas:

• Unfair Dismissal
• Discrimination, in all its forms
• Employment Status
• The Contract of Employment
• Whistleblowing
• Working Time
• Industrial Relations
• TUPE

In her Mediation work, Rachael has experience of mediating on complex and emotional matters. Rachael takes pride in her ability to quickly develop trust with those she is mediating between. In finding common ground between parties, Rachael is skilled in navigating a path to settlement, sometimes with creative solutions.

Notable Cases

Odusanya v Pennine Care Foundation Trust and others (2026) EAT 5

In November 2023 Rachael acted for the First, Third and Fourth Respondents.  In the middle of the trial, when the Claimant was still under oath, she instructed a representative.  The Respondents successfully applied for strike-out and argued that the Claimant had breached the Tribunal’s instruction not to discuss the case or evidence.  The Claimant appealed and Rachael appeared in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.  The case has developed the law on what is permitted to be done by a litigant when under oath.

Newell v ASDA Stores (2025)

Rachael represented the Defendant in the County Court and successfully defended a Multi-Track claim that involved wide ranging allegations of disability discrimination by association and harassment brought by a litigant in person.

Feja v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and others (2025)

Rachael successfully defended the Respondents against wide ranging claims of discrimination, victimisation and harassment based on the Claimant’s race, religion and sex.  There were also claims of whistleblowing detriment/health and safety detriment and constructive unfair dismissal.  The case involved serious allegations such as the Claimant having been offered money to marry someone and to kill someone.  The Claimant lost on all claims.

Kumar v University College London (2025)

Rachael represented the Respondent in a claim brought by an academic whose disabilities affected her mobility and sight.  The academic was unable to access her Department and certain work-related events and claimed discrimination in various forms, also in relation to work opportunities.  The hearing took place across 2 weeks, and the Claimant was partially successful.  The Claimant has appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Rachael continues to act in defending the proceedings.

Beere v Bolton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (2024)

Rachael represented the Respondent and successfully defended a claim heard across 2 weeks that was brought by a senior Orthoptist with whistleblowing complaints and a conspiracy theory being advanced against other senior clinicians.

Mr V Raghavakurup v North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust (2024)

Rachael represented the Respondent at a 2-week hearing and successfully defended claims brought by a senior Consultant of race discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment.

A McDermott v 1) Sellafield Ltd 2) Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 3) H Roberts [2023] EAT 60

Rachael acted for the Second Respondent over a 2 day EAT hearing against 2 KCs. The appeal followed a 3-week ET hearing in 2021 and the tribunal having awarded costs in favour of both Respondents. The claims against the Second Respondent relied the doctrine of agency. Rachael successfully defended the appeal on liability.

Dakin v Brennan (2023)

Rachael represented the Respondent, an individual against whom multiple claims of pregnancy and sex discrimination had been brought. The claims arose following a commercial dispute between the parties. There had been press attention in the case prior the final hearing. All claims were successfully resisted, and there was similar press attention in the outcome.

Sivyer v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (2023)

Rachael successfully defended an array of complaints of whistleblowing detriment following the Claimant’s employment in a mass vaccination centre in a multi-day ET hearing. The case carefully considered the issue of a protected disclosure and causation.

Postis v Leeds Beckett University (2022)

Rachael represented the university in a multi-day hearing to defend claims of constructive unfair dismissal and victimisation brought by an academic of French origin. The evidence was voluminous and went back many years. Following careful cross-examination, the Claimant withdrew his claims. Rachael successfully negotiated that the withdrawal was accompanied by a payment of costs.

A McDermott v 1) Sellafield Ltd 2) Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 3) H Roberts (2021)

Rachael represented the Second Respondent. The liability hearing took place across 3 weeks. The Claimant brought claims of whistleblowing detriment and victimisation. To succeed against the Second Respondent, the Claimant had to show that there was a relationship of principal and agency between the First and Second Respondents or that the Second Respondent was otherwise responsible for actions of the First Respondent. Rachael successfully defended all claims. The Respondents subsequently pursued costs.

Mr M Kassem v North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust (2020): 2502292/2019

In September 2020 Rachael acted for the Respondent an ET hearing spanning 3 weeks. The case involved multiple allegations of whistleblowing detriment, direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation spanning a long period. There were over 3500 pages of documents and many witnesses including high profile hospital leaders and clinicians. Given the complexity of case, the tribunal required 7 days to deliberate

Education

LLM, University of British Columbia (First Class)

MA, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge

Awards

Cynthia Terry Award, Gray’s Inn

Commonwealth Scholarship, awarded to study at the University of British Columbia (2003-2005)

Prescribed Information

Rachael Levene is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Rachael Levene can be found here.

Rachael’s clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that she provides. Their contact details can be found here. It is most common for Rachael to undertake Tribunal and Court work for a brief fee, plus refresher fees for additional days. Advisory work, including paperwork and conferences, is most commonly charged at an hourly rate. Rachael will typically return paperwork within 10-14 days, however professional commitments, and the complexity and volume of documentation can affect these timescales.

Related events

• Hill Dickinson Employment Law Seminar at Nine Chambers

  06/11/2025