Skip to main content
  • About
  • News & Insights
  • Careers
  • International
0808 291 3524
Dialog that contains search functionality
Irwin Mitchell Logo
  • Personal
    • Personal
    • Personal Home
    • Personal Injury Claims
      • Personal Injury Claims
      • Personal Injury Claims Home
      • Abuse Claims
      • Accidents In Public Places Claims
      • Criminal Injury Compensation Claims
      • Accident At Work Claims
      • Air, Rail & Maritime Claims
      • Asbestos & Mesothelioma Claims
      • Changing Solicitors During a Personal Injury Claim
      • Group Claims
      • Holiday Accidents & Illness Claims
      • Illness Compensation Claims
      • Industrial Disease Claims
      • Injury Types
      • Military Injury Compensation Claims
      • No Win No Fee Personal Injury Claims
      • Personal Injury Claims In Scotland
      • How To Claim Compensation For Personal Injury
      • Product Liability Claims
      • Road Traffic Accident Claims
      • Serious Injury Claims
      • Who Can Help?
      • Support Services
    • Medical Negligence Claims
      • Medical Negligence Claims
      • Medical Negligence Claims Home
      • Cancer Misdiagnosis Claims
      • Birth Injury Claims
      • Cauda Equina Syndrome Claims
      • Never Event Claims
      • Ambulance & Paramedic Medical Negligence Claims
      • Cosmetic Surgery Claims
      • Private Healthcare Claims
      • Cerebral Palsy Claims
      • Defective Medical Device Claims
      • Dental Negligence Claims
      • Diabetes Misdiagnosis Claims
      • Fatal Medical Negligence Claims & Inquests
      • GP Negligence Claims
      • Hospital Negligence Claims
      • What Is Medical Negligence?
      • Meningitis Misdiagnosis Claims
      • Failure To Prevent Suicide Claims
      • Misdiagnosis Claims
      • Ophthalmic Negligence Claims
      • Pregnancy & Gynaecology Injury Claims
      • Sepsis Negligence Claims
      • Pharmacy And Medication Negligence Claims
      • Shrewsbury & Telford Hospital NHS Trust Maternity Care Claims
      • Stroke Misdiagnosis Claims
      • Surgery Compensation Claims
    • Counselling
      • Counselling
      • Counselling Home
      • Counselling Myths Dispelled
    • Family Law
      • Family Law
      • Family Law Home
      • Divorce Solicitors
      • Prenuptial & Postnuptial Agreement Solicitors
      • Child Abduction Solicitors
      • Civil Partnership Solicitors
      • LGBT+ Family Law Solicitors
      • Unmarried Couples' Rights
      • Divorce Financial Settlement Solicitors
      • Child Arrangement Orders
      • Family Mediation
      • Out of Court Divorce Solicitors
      • Separation Agreement Solicitors
      • Adoption & Surrogacy Solicitors
    • Wills, Trusts & Estates
      • Wills, Trusts & Estates
      • Wills, Trusts & Estates Home
      • Estate Planning Solicitors
      • Powers Of Attorney
      • Trusts
      • Will Writing Services
      • Will Disputes & Contentious Probate
    • Conveyancing & Property Solicitors
      • Conveyancing & Property Solicitors
      • Conveyancing & Property Solicitors Home
      • Conveyancing Fees Calculator
      • Buying A Property
      • Selling A Property
      • Remortgage
      • Transfer Of Equity
      • Buy To Let
      • Freehold Purchase (Leasehold Enfranchisement) Solicitors
      • Lease Extension Solicitors
      • Conveyancing Guide
      • Residential Property Disputes
    • Tax
      • Tax
      • Tax Home
      • Business Tax
      • Inheritance Tax
      • International Tax
      • Professional Negligence
      • HMRC Tax Investigations
      • Tax Disputes & Litigation
      • Tax Residence
      • Tax Returns & Compliance
      • UK Resident Non-Doms
      • Wealth Structuring
    • Probate
      • Probate
      • Probate Home
      • International Probate
      • Probate Sale Conveyancing
      • What Is Probate & How Does It Work?
    • Will, Trust & Estate Disputes
      • Will, Trust & Estate Disputes
      • Will, Trust & Estate Disputes Home
      • Trust Disputes
      • Inheritance Act Claims
      • Contesting A Will
      • Contentious Probate
      • Pre-Death Agreements
      • Professional Negligence
      • Challenging A Lifetime Gift
      • Financial Abuse
      • Statutory Will Disputes
      • Defending A Contested Will
    • Employment Solicitors
      • Employment Solicitors
      • Employment Solicitors Home
      • Employment Contract Solicitors
      • Employment Disputes
      • Dismissal & Redundancy Solicitors
      • Employment Discrimination Solicitors
      • Employment Lawyers for Legal Expenses Insurance
      • Harassment & Bullying At Work Solicitors
      • Parental & Family Friendly Employment Rights
      • Professional Discipline Solicitors
      • Recruitment & Promotion
      • Senior Executive Employment Lawyers
      • Settlement Agreements
      • Whistleblowing Solicitors
    • Elderly Legal Services
    • Protecting Your Rights
      • Protecting Your Rights
      • Protecting Your Rights Home
      • Actions Against The Police
      • Inquests
      • Environmental & Planning Law
      • Assessment & Treatment Unit Solicitors
      • Data Protection Breach Claims
      • Education Law
      • Healthcare & Social Services
      • Human Rights
      • Judicial Review
      • Mental Capacity
      • Professional Regulation & Discipline
      • Dispute Resolution
      • Legal Aid
    • Immigration Solicitors
      • Immigration Solicitors
      • Immigration Solicitors Home
      • British Citizenship & Naturalisation Solicitors
      • EU & EEA Immigration Solicitors
      • Indefinite Leave To Remain Solicitors
      • Spouse Visa Solicitors
      • Innovator Visa
      • Permanent Residence Solicitors
      • Business Immigration Solicitors
    • Crime & Investigations
      • Crime & Investigations
      • Crime & Investigations Home
      • Crime
      • Fraud & Financial Crime
      • Court Martial Solicitors
      • Motoring Offences Legal Advice
      • Regulatory Investigations & Enforcement
    • Insolvency
      • Insolvency
      • Insolvency Home
      • Business Restructuring & Insolvency
      • Debt Consultancy
      • Insolvency Disputes & Litigation
    • Court Of Protection
      • Court Of Protection
      • Court Of Protection Home
      • Court Of Protection Deputyship
      • Personal Injury Trusts
      • Court Of Protection Problems & Disputes
      • Healthcare and Social Services
      • Court of Protection Frequently Asked Questions
      • Powers Of Attorney Disputes
      • Statutory Wills Solicitors
  • Wealth Management
    • Wealth Management
    • Wealth Management Home
    • Asset Management For Personal Injury
    • Charity & Philanthropy
    • Estate Planning
    • Ethical & Sustainable Investing
    • Financial Planning
    • Intergenerational Wealth Management
    • Investment Management
    • Retirement Financial Planning
    • Family Offices
    • Succession Planning
    • Tax Planning
  • Business
    • Business
    • Business Home
    • Sectors
      • Sectors
      • Sectors Home
      • Agriculture & Rural Business
      • Retail, Leisure & Hospitality
      • Education
      • Financial & Professional Services
      • Landed Estates
      • Manufacturing
      • Real Estate
      • Sport
      • Technology & Communications
    • Banking & Finance
      • Banking & Finance
      • Banking & Finance Home
      • Corporate Banking
      • Leveraged & Acquisition Finance
      • Real Estate Finance
      • Receivables Finance & Asset Based Lending
    • Environmental, Social & Governance
      • Environmental, Social & Governance
      • Environmental, Social & Governance Home
      • Cyber Security
      • Environment
      • Net Zero
      • Social
      • Diversity & Inclusion
      • Governance
      • International
      • ESG Legal Advisory Services
      • Legislation Library
      • Manufacturing Sector
      • Real Estate
      • Retail, Leisure and Hospitality Sector
      • Sports Sector
    • Business Crime
      • Business Crime
      • Business Crime Home
      • Anti-Bribery & Corruption
      • Asset Tracing & Recovery
      • Cartels & Illegal Price Fixing
      • Cybercrime
      • Dawn Raids
      • Deferred Prosecution Agreements
      • Extradition
      • INTERPOL Red Notices
      • Mutual Legal Assistance
      • Private Prosecution
      • Proceeds Of Crime Act
      • Unexplained Wealth Orders
      • Fraud Lawyers
      • Insider Trading & Market Abuse
      • Corporate Internal Investigations
    • Business Immigration
      • Business Immigration
      • Business Immigration Home
      • Business Visitor Visa
      • Global Business Mobility Visas
      • Innovator Visa
      • Prevention Of Illegal Working
      • Skilled Worker Visas
      • Sole Representative Of An Overseas Business
      • UK Visa Sponsor License
    • Commercial
      • Commercial
      • Commercial Home
      • Commercial Contracts
      • Competition Law
      • GDPR & Data Protection
      • Information Technology
      • Sourcing
      • Notary Public Solicitors
    • Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution
      • Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution
      • Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution Home
      • Banking & Finance Litigation
      • Business Interruption Insurance Lawyers
      • Contract Disputes
      • Defamation & Reputation Management
      • International & Cross-Border Disputes
      • Commercial Debt Recovery
      • Litigation Funding
      • Professional Negligence
    • Corporate
      • Corporate
      • Corporate Home
      • Corporate Advisory
      • Equity Capital Markets
      • Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A)
      • Private Equity
      • Search Funds and Entrepreneurship Through Acquisition Lawyers
    • Costs Team
    • Employment Law
      • Employment Law
      • Employment Law Home
      • Business Immigration
      • Employment Contracts, Policies & Procedures
      • Disciplinary & Grievance
      • Employee & Industrial Relations
      • Employment Lawyers for Legal Expenses Insurance
      • Employment Litigation & Resolution Lawyers
      • Equality, Diversity & Discrimination
      • Flexible Working Arrangements
      • Health & Safety
      • HR Advice Service - IMhrplus
      • Managing Sickness Absence
      • Pensions
      • Recruitment
      • Restrictive Covenants
      • Restructuring & Redundancy
      • Self Employment, Contractors & Agency Workers
      • Employment Seminars, Training & Updates
      • TUPE
    • In-House Counsel
    • Intellectual Property and Media
      • Intellectual Property and Media
      • Intellectual Property and Media Home
      • Defamation & Reputation Management
      • Brand Accelerator
      • Copyright Lawyers
      • Design Rights Lawyers
      • Image Rights Lawyers
      • Online Marketplace Seller Account Or Listing Suspensions
      • Stopping IP Infringement By Sellers On Online Marketplaces
      • Patent Lawyers
      • Trade Mark Lawyers
      • Trade Secrets Lawyers
    • Legal Helpline
    • Licensing
      • Licensing
      • Licensing Home
      • Betting & Gaming Licensing
      • Event Licences
      • Alcohol Licensing
    • Pensions
      • Pensions
      • Pensions Home
      • Employment
      • Managing Death Benefit Trusts
    • Regulatory & Compliance
      • Regulatory & Compliance
      • Regulatory & Compliance Home
      • Road Transport & Operator Compliance
      • GDPR & Data Protection
      • Regulatory Investigations
      • Account Freezing Orders
      • Anti-Money Laundering
      • Companies House Prosecutions
      • Environment & Safety Regulatory Compliance
      • Financial Services Regulation
    • Real Estate
      • Real Estate
      • Real Estate Home
      • Corporate Occupiers
      • Real Estate Development and Regeneration
      • Construction & Engineering
      • Environmental
      • Real Estate Finance
      • Real Estate Investment
      • Later Living & Care
      • Planning
      • Property Litigation & Real Estate Disputes
      • Real Estate Tax
      • Residential Development
      • Strategic Land
      • Structured Real Estate
    • Restructuring & Insolvency
      • Restructuring & Insolvency
      • Restructuring & Insolvency Home
      • Corporate Insolvency
      • Partnership Insolvency
      • Directors' Duties
      • Restructuring Plans
      • Debt Recovery (up to £100,000) – Pricing
      • Restructuring
    • Tax
      • Tax
      • Tax Home
      • Corporate Tax
      • Real Estate Tax
      • Tax Investigations
  • People
    • People
    • People Home
    • Search By Name
    • Search By Location
    • Search By Expertise
    • Business Management
  • Offices
    • Offices
    • Offices Home
    • Birmingham
    • Brighton
    • Bristol
    • Cambridge
    • Cardiff
    • Chichester
    • Edinburgh
    • Gatwick
    • Glasgow
    • Leeds
    • Liverpool
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Middlesbrough
    • Newbury
    • Newcastle
    • North Yorkshire
    • Nottingham
    • Reading
    • Sheffield
    • Southampton
  • Contact
  • About
  • News & Insights
  • Careers
  • International
Irwin Mitchell Logo
Dialog with Irwin Mitchell phone number
Call us on 0808 291 3524

We're here 24/7, 365 days a year.

  • Home
  • News & Insights
  • Newsletters
  • August 2017 - Case Law Round Up

August 2017 - Case Law Round Up

Whistleblowing: How many people have to be affected before a whistleblower will satisfy the public interest test? 

The Court of Appeal in Chesterton Global Ltd and another v Nurmohamed said that it was not simply a question of the numbers of people affected for a disclosure to be in the “public interest”. Other factors are also relevant such as the identity and seniority of the whistleblower and the nature of the wrongdoing.

Facts

In this case, the employee, Mr Nurmohamed (“Mr N”), worked for the estate agency Chestertons and brought a whistleblowing claim after it changed the way in which it paid commission to its estate agents from a system based on revenue to one calculated on actual profits.

Although Mr N reluctantly agreed to this change, he believed it would have a serious impact on his earnings and he monitored the new arrangement. Having done this, he believed that company profits were being artificially suppressed to reduce the level of commission payable by around £2-3 million.

Mr N complained to Chestertons and argued that about 100 other managers were affected by this and claimed that, as a result of the number of people involved, his complaint was in the “public interest”. Shortly after making his complaint, Mr N was dismissed and brought claims to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.

The Employment Tribunal found in favour of Mr N and upheld his claims. It accepted that a group of 100 people was enough to meet the definition of “the public”. It stated that “the public” can mean a section of the public rather than the public en masse. Following an appeal by Chestertons, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Tribunal’s decision and Chestertons appealed further to the Court of Appeal which heard the case on 8 June 2017.

Decision

The Court of Appeal had to determine whether a disclosure which is in the private interests of the person “blowing the whistle” could be said to be in the public interest simply because it serves the private interests of other workers as well.

The Court rejected Chestertons’ argument that to meet the public interest test, others outside of the workplace must also be affected or would otherwise benefit from the disclosure. The charity Public Interest at Work also intervened and argued that if more than one person was affected by the wrongdoing, then that should be considered sufficient to be in the public interest. The Court also rejected that approach.

The Court of Appeal found that the Employment Tribunal were correct to find that Mr N’s disclosure was in the public interest because it affected a significant number of employees, the wrongdoing was said to be deliberate, the misstating of the accounts was significant and the organisation itself was a well-known national firm of estate agents.

Tip

The number of other people affected remains an important factor and the more people affected by a contractual breach, the more likely it is that there will be other features of the situation which will engage the public interest.

However, the identity and status of the whistleblower is also important as the more prominent the whistleblower, the more likely the disclosure will be in the public interest. Likewise, the nature of the wrongdoing is also relevant as something that is done deliberately is more likely to be in the public interest than if it was inadvertent even if it affects the same number of people.


 

Indirect discrimination: Does a claimant have to show why a provision practice or criteria puts them at a particular disadvantage?

Not according to the Supreme Court in Essop and Others v Home Office and Naeem v Secretary of State for Business. If the PCP causes a disadvantage to a protected group, tribunals should focus on whether this can be justified.

Facts of the two cases

In Essop and Others v Home Office, the claimants alleged that black and minority ethnic (“BME”) candidates over the age of 35 were less likely than non-BME and younger candidates to pass a core skills assessment, which was required in order to be promoted to the position of Higher Executive Officer or above.

The claimants argued that the requirement to pass the core skills assessment was a PCP applied by the Home Office that put older BME candidates at a disadvantage to others. They argued that although not all older BME candidates failed, there was a statistically significant difference between the success of older BME candidates and younger non-BME candidates sitting the core skills assessment and that the claimants themselves had failed the assessment with no identifiable personal characteristic to explain why.

The Employment Tribunal held that to prove personal disadvantage, it was not enough for the claimants to show that they were part of the group and had failed the assessment. They also needed to show a causal link between the disadvantage suffered by the group and that suffered by them as an individual. The claimants appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 did not require members of a disadvantaged group to show why they had suffered a disadvantage. The Court of Appeal overturned the EAT’s decision and held that a claimant did have to show the reason why the requirement to pass the assessment put the group at a disadvantage and that they had individually failed the test for that same reason. Mr Essop appealed that decision.

In Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice, the Secretary of State operated an incremental pay scheme which granted pay rises based on length of service. A Muslim Imam, Mr Naeem, working as a prison chaplain argued that the pay scheme was indirectly discriminatory because it had a disparate impact upon Muslin chaplains.

In the past, only Christian chaplains had been employed by the prison service and Mr Naeem argued that this meant that all of the Muslim chaplains that worked there had shorter service and were paid less.

In Naeem, the Court of Appeal held that the reason why the group suffered the disadvantage had to be something which was peculiar to the protected characteristic they shared. They said that it was not enough to show a disparate impact upon Muslim chaplains. It was also necessary to show that the reason for the disparate impact was something peculiar to the protected characteristic in question. Mr Naeem appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision

The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal and allowed both appeals. They held that there is no requirement for a claimant to prove the reason why a provision, criterion or practice puts or would put an affected group sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage; it is enough that it does.

Tip

The Supreme Court’s judgment provides welcome and clear guidance on the basic requirements of group and individual disadvantage.

It said that employers should not see justification as a dirty word. Indirect discrimination can be justified provided employers can show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Generally, all that is required is for employers to demonstrate that there is not a less onerous way of achieving the same objective.


 

Some other substantial reason dismissal/immigration: Is there a higher reasonableness test for an employer dismissing an employee for ‘some other substantial reason’?

No, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Ssekisonge v Barts Health NHS Trust.

Facts

Mrs S was a nurse who came to the UK from Rwanda in 2010 and was given indefinite leave to remain under her former name. She was later granted British citizenship and changed her surname to Ssekisonge after marrying. The Home Office questioned Mrs S’s right to be in the UK and alleged that she was a different individual to that which had arrived in 2010; however, they did not immediately investigate or take any action against her. Mrs S joined the Trust in 2011 and presented her passport as evidence of her right to work in the UK, which was accepted.

The Home Office contacted Mrs S again in 2013 to confirm that her naturalisation was “null and void” and that her right to remain in the UK would be reviewed.

Mrs S did not inform the Trust of the issue and the Trust first became aware of it when Mrs S’s DBS certificate was revoked because her identity could not be verified. Mrs S was dismissed from the Trust with immediate effect as the Trust no longer had satisfactory evidence to confirm her identity.

Mrs S brought a claim for unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal. The Trust relied on the potentially fair reason to dismiss of “some other substantial reason”. The Employment Tribunal found that the issues with Mrs S’s identity and the DBS revocation raised substantial concerns which rendered the dismissal within the range of reasonable responses.

Mrs S appealed the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Decision

In her appeal, Mrs S argued that a dismissal for “some other substantial reason” requires a higher threshold than would otherwise be applied. Mrs S believed that the Home Office investigation into her identity was prompted by false allegations made by her ex-husband and that a higher threshold should be applied because she was not at fault in any way.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed Mrs S’s appeal. They held that it was fair for the Trust to dismiss Mrs S for the reasons set out and the threshold for SOSR dismissals is not any higher than for other dismissals.

Tip

Employers can only lawfully employ individuals who can prove they have a right to work in the UK. The penalties for getting this wrong are significant; employers can be fined up to £20,000 per illegal worker and can face criminal sanctions in some circumstances.

If workers have a limited right to work, you must ensure that your diarise the date that right expires and contact the employee at least 60 days beforehand to recheck their documents.

If the employee does not produce relevant documents within a reasonable timescale (30 days), you should write to the employee and explain that if s/he cannot establish a continued to right to work in the UK they be dismissed. Then if the employee is still not able to produce relevant documents, he or she should be dismissed.

It seems that it may be better to rely on SOSR dismissals in these circumstances rather than illegality or misconduct. Misconduct is not appropriate to these types of cases and illegality can only be cited if you are absolutely certain that continuing to employ the employee would be unlawful (which can be very difficult to judge).

Please note: The ACAS code of practice does not apply to SOSR dismissals. Therefore whilst you should adopt a fair procedure, you do not have to offer the employee an automatic right to appeal (but you might want to offer this if the individual can establish a right to work in the UK).

If you are dismissing an individual in these circumstances, you should not allow the employee to work their notice (because of the risk of employing someone who does not have the right to work in the UK). Instead, you should make a payment in lieu of notice and pay all outstanding contractual payments due.


 

Sex discrimination: Do employers have to enhance shared parental pay if they enhance maternity pay?

The Employment Tribunal reached conflicting conclusions in Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd and Hextall v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police. 

We await the outcomes in the appeals for further clarity.

Facts

Mr Ali was employed by Capita following a TUPE transfer from Telefonica in 2013. Under Telefonica’s family-friendly policies which transferred to Capita, transferring female Telefonica employees were entitled to enhanced maternity pay comprising 14 weeks’ basic pay followed by 25 weeks’ statutory maternity pay. Transferring male Telefonica employees were entitled to two weeks’ paid ordinary paternity leave and up to 26 weeks’ additional paternity leave at the statutory rates.

Mr Ali took two weeks’ paid leave immediately upon the birth of his daughter and wished to take further leave to care for his daughter after his wife had been diagnosed with postnatal depression and was advised to return to work.

Capita informed Mr Ali that he could take shared parental leave but told him that he would only be entitled to statutory pay when doing so. Mr Ali argued that he should receive the same entitlements as a female employee taking maternity leave. He submitted a grievance which was rejected and then issued proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, alleging direct and indirect sex discrimination.

Decision

The Tribunal upheld the direct sex discrimination claim and rejected the indirect sex discrimination claim.

In relation to the direct sex discrimination claim, the Tribunal held that Mr Ali could compare himself with a hypothetical female colleague that took leave to care for her child after the two weeks compulsory maternity leave period.

The Tribunal ruled that the denial of full pay amounted to less favourable treatment and the reason for this was Mr Ali’s sex. The Tribunal decided that the enhanced maternity pay was not special treatment in connection with pregnancy and child-birth but was special treatment for caring for a newborn baby, which is what Mr Ali was doing.

In relation to the indirect sex discrimination claim, the Tribunal held that the provision, criterion or practice that Capita had relied on was the Telefonica maternity policy and by definition, this policy was not gender neutral. As a result, the Tribunal were unable to find an indirect discrimination claim.

However, in the earlier decision of Hextall v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police, decided on similar facts, an Employment Tribunal held that it was not discriminatory to offer enhanced maternity pay but only statutory shared parental pay. The Tribunal concluded that there was no valid comparison between a man on shared parental leave and a woman on maternity leave and the correct comparator was a woman on shared parental leave.

Tip

The government produced detailed technical guidance to employers when it introduced shared parental leave which stated that it was not necessary for employers to enhance shared parental pay even if they enhanced maternity pay. Many employers have relied on this to justify differences in their family leave policies. In the light of this, it seems that the decision in Ali is a strange one.

There is no need to change your policies at this stage. Both Capita and Mr Hextall are appealing the decisions of the Employment Tribunals and the EAT will hopefully provide some much needed clarity in this regard.

 

Published: 7 August 2017

 


Employment Law Update - August 2017

Sign up to receive our monthly employment law update

  • Frequently asked questions: Employment Tribunal fees
  • Myth buster: Employers can’t put a pregnant employee through a performance management procedure
  • Is your EU passport Brexit-proof?
  • Are sleep-in workers entitled to the National Minimum Wage for their whole shift, or just the time they are awake and carrying out duties? 
  • GDPR - guidance for employers
  • Case law round up




For general enquiries

0808 291 3524

Or we can call you back at a time of your choice

Phone lines are open 24/7, 365 days a year

Contact us today

For a free initial consultation

Freephone

0808 291 3524

Prefer not to call?

Use our form

This data will only be used by Irwin Mitchell for processing your query and for no other purpose.

Jo-Moseley
Jo Moseley Senior Associate Solicitor Meet the team

About Irwin Mitchell

Founded in Sheffield in 1912, Irwin Mitchell has always been a bit different. Our advisers really get to know the people and business that we help.

We have offices around the UK so wherever you are, our experts can help.

Contact Us

Give us a ring to speak to a member of our team in the strictest confidence. Or you can fill out our contact form and we'll ring you back.

0370 1500 100

Our phone lines are open 24/7, 365 days a year

Get a call back

Fill in your details below and we'll be in touch as soon as possible

This data will only be used by Irwin Mitchell for processing your query and for no other purpose.

  • Contact
  • 0370 1500 100
  • Contact Irwin Mitchell
  • Social Media
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • About Irwin Mitchell
  • About Us
  • Responsible Business
  • Careers
  • Business Management
  • Alumni Programme
  • Pay A Bill
  • Complaints Procedure
  • SRA Regulated
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Accessibility
  • Privacy & Security
  • Hoaxes
  • Modern Slavery Act Statement
  • Manage Cookie Settings

© 2025  Irwin Mitchell LLP

Irwin Mitchell LLP is authorised & regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Our Regulatory Information

Dialog that contains a form to request a callback.

Request A Callback

Enter your details below and a member of our team will contact you within 24 hours

This data will only be used by Irwin Mitchell for processing your query and for no other purpose.