Having A NatteRR

🎙️ 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.

In the latest episode of "Having a NatteRR", Simon and David discuss DB v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd, an unfair dismissal claim in which the Claimant was sacked for inadvertently exposing his private parts during a work Teams call.

David talks us through the facts and Simon goes through the judgment.

Also featuring:

☕ David’s trip to Wrexham

🥐 Simon’s dream about Ryan Reynolds and a Premier Inn breakfast

Whether you're here for the legal insight, the laughs, or the low-key love for Welsh football clubs, this one’s not to be missed.

In the latest episode of 'Having a NatteRR', Simon and David explore the case of Rooke v NHS Blood and Transplant, in which the Claimant was awarded nearly £30,000 after being compared to Darth Vader at work.

🧑‍⚖️ David lays out the facts.
📜 Simon breaks down the judgment.
🍪 Obviously biscuits are mentioned.
🌍 There’s some chat about the merits of Croydon vs Croyde.
🌌 And of course — plenty of Star Wars references.

Whether you're into employment law, HR issues, or just want to hear two solicitors try to out-nerd each other on all things intergalactic, this one’s for you.

In this week’s Having a Natter, Simon and David tackle the case of Forrester-Hayes v Scania (Great Britain) Ltd, which involved a claim of discrimination arising from disability.

 

🧠 David walks us through the facts

⚖️ Simon breaks down the judgment

👏 And we all go home happy (or at least slightly better informed)

 

But it wouldn’t be Having a Natter without a generous helping of actual nattering...

 

Expect:

📺 80s nostalgia (Birds Eye Steakhouse Grills, anyone?)

🍊 A hark back to when orange juice was considered a starter

🍷 A deep—and entirely inconclusive—debate on whether port really does come from Portugal (we’re still not sure… are you?)

In the latest episode of Robinson Ralph’s ever unpopular podcast "Having a NatteRR", Simon and David take on the serious stuff and the shed stuff.

This week’s legal spotlight: Yousif v The Good Shepherd Trust, a case involving a claim of harassment related to race. As ever, Simon and David break it down and highlight the lessons for employers.

And let us not forget the banter section (aka “Middle-aged Men Do Outdoorsy Things”) which in this episode covers:

🧹 Clearing out sheds
🚜 Mowing lawns
🏯 Erecting pagodas

If you’re looking for employment law insights with a side of dad jokes, questionable DIY chat, and the occasional philosophical musings about garden furniture – this one’s for you.