Zeeshan Dhar

Call:1999

Introduction & Contact Details

Zeeshan specialises in all aspects of employment law and enjoys working with a broad ranging client base including PLCs; medium sized companies; recruitment agencies; and Executive Directors and Senior Consultants in the IT and Banking Industry. In addition to private clients, he is instructed by public sector clients including Higher Education Establishments, Housing Trusts and Public Service Providers.

In addition to employment law, Zeeshan has an interest in and undertakes gaming law and regulatory work on behalf of various Gaming Entertainment Providers and online Gaming Companies. He regularly advises on various aspects of Gambling Law, remote and non-remote.

Zeeshan has a professional yet relaxed and user friendly approach with a loyal client following. He has strong advocacy, research and written skills. His hobbies include running and playing tennis.

Zeeshan provides bespoke and tailor made training courses to several large employers and to HR professionals under the Direct Access Scheme.

COMMERCIAL

Zeeshan’s commercial practice centres largely on his employment work, in which he has acquired a large amount of experience.

Employment Law

Zeeshan appears regularly before employment Tribunals for both Claimants and Respondents and has experience in High Court employment litigation. Zeeshan is instructed by a range of City, large regional firms and directly by the HR and Legal departments of a number of high profile national and international companies. He has significant experience in large scale group litigation, appearing both for employers and employees in substantial redundancy, wages and TUPE related claims.

Zeeshan has a particular interest in the commercial aspects of employment law often involving complex director and senior employee issues such as fiduciary duties and post-termination restraints. Zeeshan accepts instructions on matters including restrictive covenants, garden leave and confidentiality injunctions.

In addition to Tribunal work and litigation, Zeeshan has extensive experience in drafting contracts of employment and employment handbooks incorporating a wide range of employment policies and procedures. These include such matters as disciplinary issues; grievance; absence management; redundancy; whistle-blowing; data protection; confidentiality; post termination restrictions; equal opportunities; dignity at work; bullying and harassment; flexible working; health and safety; and holiday pay.

Zeeshan’s advisory work covers a broad range of matters including the general terms and conditions of a contract; variation and breach of contracts; compromise agreements; employment status; bonuses; conduct dismissals; redundancy procedures and dismissals; early retirement; public interest disclosure and ethical policies; flexible working; orientation and belief regulations; and the law of agency.

Recent Work

Newey v Enterprise Managed Services Limited (2009): Currently acting for a National Employer in a TUPE related dismissal claim. The principal issue in the case concerns the extent to which an employer must set out the terms of employment before a valid objection triggers the bar to statutory novation.

Smyth & others v Smurfit Kappa UK Ltd (2009): Currently representing a National Employer in a multi-party action (113 claimants) for unlawful deduction from wages. The issue to be determined is whether or not a one-off compensatory payment made to employees as consideration for accepting a contractual variation ought to have been considered ‘gross wages’ for the purpose of determining a quarterly bonus.

Unite/Mr. Cubin & Others v Enterprise Ltd and Liverpool Mutual Homes (2009): Currently representing the 1st Respondent (Transferor) in a multi party claim arising out of a large scale TUPE transfer.

Sangha v Weetabix ltd (2009): Represented the Respondent, a multi-national, in a complex PIDA related dismissal. The principal question for the employment tribunal was whether or not an employees complaints about her colleagues treatment of her could amount to a qualifying ‘health and safety’ disclosure.

Reported Cases

South London & Maudsley NHS Trust v Dathi [2008] All ER (D) 240 (Feb)
Represented the Claimant. Mrs Dathi was a muslim of Indian origin employed by South London & Maudsley NHS Trust. She brought a number of complaints of, amongst other things, discrimination on the grounds of race and/or religion against the trust and a colleague, which gave rise to proceedings in the employment tribunal, culminating in a judgment in Mrs Dathi's favour. The trust was also ordered to pay 50% of her costs.

The case was also heard at the EAT on the question of whether or not the defence of absolute immunity was available to the Respondent for its conduct during the course of litigation.

Barrat v Accrington and Rossendale College (2007), EAT/0099/06
Application of band of reasonable responses test to constructive unfair dismissal.

PUBLIC LAW

Zeeshan has considerable expertise in this specialist area, concentrating largely on employment and discrimination actions.

Discrimination

His Tribunal work covers all aspects of discrimination. He has experience representing clients who have encountered discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, sex and pregnancy, as well as direct and indirect discrimination, or by association.

Zeeshan acts for a wide range of clients, including Respondents and Claimants, in high value discrimination, harassment, disability, victimisation cases, and has considerable experience in issues of maternity and paternity rights.

Recent Work

Osman v Adecco & others (2009)
Acting for the Respondent in a claim for Race Discrimination and Harassment. The case involved consideration of whether or not the Respondent could be liable for subjecting the Claimant to a detriment based on the conduct of a third party.

Drummond Murray v Wrefords (2009)
Acting for the Respondent in a high value Disability Discrimination Claim. The Respondent successfully presented arguments related to causation which prevented the Claimant from securing substantial compensation in a high value ‘career loss’ claim.

McCleod v Chep UK Ltd (2009)
Defended this Multi-National Employer in a Disability Discrimination claim brought by an employee who claimed that the Employer failed to make reasonable adjustments on account of his dyslexia by disregarding anomalies in the Claimant’s accounts. The case involved difficult factual and legal analysis of a dyslexia related disability.

Sohal v Carrillion Enterprise (2009)
Represented the Respondent, a multinational venture, in a high value claim for Race Discrimination arising out of redundancy selection.

Woodrow & Others v Liverpool Airport (2009)
Currently representing the Respondent in a multi-party action which raises claims of Sexual Orientation and Disability Discrimination arising out of a redundancy exercise.

Capaldi v Airbus UK (2009)
Currently representing the Respondent in a complex high value PIDA/ Disabilty Discrimination claim.

Metterfi v Enterprise Managed Services Ltd (2009)
Currently representing the Respondent in a multi-day race discrimination allegation in which the Claimant is giving evidence via an interpreter.

Professional Discipline

Zeeshan regularly advises and represents both Doctors and Nurses facing disciplinary proceedings at first instance and at appeal stage.

Regulatory/Gaming

He has acted for clients across the gambling sector, both land-based and remote.  In particular, he has been advising on internet gambling for several years and assists clients in a variety of different gambling and regulatory issues.

Zeeshan acts for leisure operators. He acts for both land based and on-line gambling operators and has particular expertise with web based gambling. He advises major companies and private entrepreneurs on setting up remote and non-remote gambling and prize competitions. He has particular expertise in advising remote property hosting competition sites on compliance with the relevant lottery and prize competition provisions in the Gambling Act 2005.

Following the rise in popularity of poker and its variants, Zeeshan has represented and advised several large remote and non-remote poker operators facing regulatory breaches. Zeeshan has particular expertise in advising in relation to securing Club Gaming Permits for Card Game Operators.

Zeeshan’s expertise has led him to the Court of Appeal in a case involving the interpretation of the phrase ‘game of chance’ in the Gaming Act 1968.

Reported Cases

R v Derek Kelly [2008] EWCA Crim 137
The case concerned a question of substantial public importance, namely whether for the purposes of the Gaming Act 1968 poker was a game of chance or skill. The implications of the judgment for the gaming industry was significant as it would determine whether or not Poker and its variants were subject to the applicable regulatory regime.