Having A NatteRR

🎙️ In the latest episode of Having a NatteRR, Simon and Dave discuss Jeffery v Givaudan UK Limited.

After succeeding in his unfair dismissal claim, the claimant requested written reasons for the tribunal’s refusal to order reinstatement or re-engagement. The parties then settled, and the judge declined to provide them because the proceedings had ended.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal: a subsequent settlement does not extinguish a valid request for written reasons.

Meanwhile, in the banter section, Dave has developed a penchant for 60th birthday parties, and they consider whether Simon is biodegradable. 🎂♻️

Employment law, birthday parties and Simon’s environmental credentials. All in one episode.

In the latest episode of Having a NatteRR, Simon and David look at the case of Walker v McGill's Bus Services Ltd, in which an employee was dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to undergo a “for cause” drug and alcohol test.

The employer had seen a Snapchat video showing the employee loading beers into a fridge at work, which the Tribunal accepted gave reasonable grounds to request an alcohol test. The problem? The employer also demanded a drug test, despite having no suspicion or justification for doing so – and its own policies treated drug and alcohol testing separately.

And in this week’s banter, we briefly explore two other matters of considerable importance: Simon's obsession with zombies 🧟 and David's obsession with Land Rovers.

Employment law and the important issues of the day. What more could you want?

In this episode, Simon and David look at Ben Wright v Extraction Solutions Limited.

Mr Wright worked as a duct fitter and service engineer for the Yorkshire-based business, which was co-owned and directed by his father.

He was dismissed following allegations of gross misconduct, including:

• Inaccurate time recording – after travelling to Penrith for a job that turned out not to be needed, he stayed in the area to go shopping and have lunch, before claiming a full day’s wages at double time.
• False mileage claims – including expenses for journeys the company alleged he hadn’t actually made.

He subsequently brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

Simon and David discuss what happened, what the Tribunal made of it, and the employment law lessons for employers dealing with misconduct – particularly when family relationships are thrown into the mix.

And, naturally, there’s the important issue of the week in Banter:

Is it weird to be in a book club?

Apparently this required discussion.

In this episode, Dave and Simon discuss Ms L Williams-St Louis v West Berkshire Council – a recent Employment Tribunal case involving racial harassment and victimisation.

Ms Williams-St Louis, a youth turnaround intervention worker, experienced serious racial abuse from two young people she was supporting.

But the case wasn’t simply about the abuse itself. The Tribunal looked closely at how her employer responded when she reported it.

As always, Dave talks us through what happened and Simon explains the judgment – and what employers can learn from it.

And because it wouldn’t be Having a NatteRR without going wildly off topic, there’s also discussion of:

🐟 Fish biting Simon’s legs on holiday in Greece
🥊 Fish Thai boxing
🦴 And the surprisingly important question: do fish have a rib cage?

Employment law and fish anatomy. All the essentials.

🎙️ Another episode of Having a NatteRR is here!

This time, Dave and Simon are looking at Daudet v Computacenter (UK) Limited – a case which asks a rather unusual question about what can amount to a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act.

⚖️ The case

The claimant strongly believed that he had precognitive, premonitory and prophetic dreams – essentially, that he had a psychic ability to foresee future events in his dreams and premonitions, the majority (or, according to his evidence, all) of which came true.

The Tribunal had to consider whether this belief was capable of protection as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.

It concluded that it wasn't. The belief was too narrowly focused on the claimant's belief in his own particular psychic abilities, rather than concerning a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour. It also lacked the level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance required to qualify for protection.

Dave talks us through the facts, before Simon tackles the judgment and the Tribunal's application of the Grainger criteria.

Equally weighty and substantial matters are discussed in the 'banter section'…

• Simon tells us about his holiday to France, which appears to have mainly involved eating, judging by the amount of time he spends listing everything he consumed.
• And for reasons that will become apparent, there is also a surprisingly lengthy discussion about liquorice.

Dave and Simon are back with another employment law case – and this one has some fairly remarkable facts…

⚖️ The case: Wright v D Douglas t/a Harlequin Property Services

The case involved an unfair dismissal claim brought by a long-serving Property Manager who had worked for the family-run business since 1997. The Tribunal found that she had actually resigned rather than been dismissed – and went on to consider allegations that she had improperly taken more than £21,000 from the business and directed tenants to pay rent into her personal bank account.

Dave talks us through the facts of the case, before Simon takes over to look at the judgment – including the Tribunal’s finding that, even if there had been an unfair dismissal, the claimant’s conduct meant she would have received no basic or compensatory award.

They also touch on the really pressing issues of the day…

• Dave’s holiday to Canada – which unfortunately included a broken toe.
• Who would win in a fight: a shark or a crocodile?
• And perhaps the most controversial question of all… is brain offal?

Employment law. Holiday injuries. Animal combat. Organ classification. What more do you want?

In this episode, Simon and Dave take a look at Adams v People Potential Possibilities, a case that explores allegations of race discrimination and highlights the tribunal's approach to considering the wider context of workplace interactions and the reasonableness of an employee's perception.

As always, Dave talks listeners through the facts of the case before Simon explains the tribunal's judgment and the practical lessons employers can take away. And, because it wouldn't be Having a NatteRR without it, there's also the obligatory banter section – this week featuring plenty of chat about England's football exploits. 

David and Simon are back with a new series of Having a NattteRR – the podcast that inexplicably combines terrible banter and employment law.

In this episode, they discuss the Employment Tribunal decision in Littlewood v Nuffield Health, a noteworthy whistleblowing and constructive unfair dismissal case.

David talks listeners through the facts before Simon examines the judgment and the Tribunal's reasoning.

Away from the legal issues, listeners are treated to a fascinating diversion into the historical origins of his son's running shoes.

🎙️ New Episode Alert: Having a Natter
(or as we like to call it… two solicitors, one microphone, and absolutely no promise of staying on topic.)

This week, Simon and David dive into the case of Borisov v American International Group UK Ltd (AIG) where the Claimant’s own conduct led to his claim being struck out.

David takes us through the facts and Simon talks about the judgment.

But because this is Having a Natter, the legal analysis is only half the fun.

The rest of the episode?

• A tour of the gigs they’ve been to recently
• A discussion about whether comedians feel a sudden pressure when Simon and David turn up in the audience

So if you fancy:
✔️ A sharp, practical rundown of an interesting strike-out case
✔️ A peek into the busy social lives of two middle-aged men who think they’re still cool
✔️ And a few laughs along the way

…then this episode is for you.

🎙️ NEW ‘Having a NatteRR’ episode! ⚖️☕

In this episode, Simon and David explore the case of Garner v Thorpe Hall Leisure — an important reminder of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

David talks us through the facts of the case, while Simon takes on the judgment — both sharing insights, practical takeaways.

And of course, no natteRR is complete without the banter section — expect family updates, weekend plans, and the usual off-topic detours.

🎧 Tune in for legal insight with a generous splash of personality.