Anisa Niaz-Dickinson


Notable Cases

Manchester

36 Young Street, Manchester, M3 3FT
DX: 718188 MCH 3
Direct Dial: 0161 832 9082

Leeds

5 Park Square, Leeds, LS1 2NE
DX: 713113 LEEDS PARK SQ
Direct Dial: 0113 242 1123

Birmingham

Embassy House, 60 Church Street,
Birmingham, B3 2DJ
DX: 13023 BIRMINGHAM
Direct Dial: 0121 200 3570

Clerked by:
Paul Clarke



Notable Cases

 

Notable Cases

Mr S Milliauskas v Yodel delivery Network (2017) 1301745/2017

Successfully represented the Respondent at 5 day hearing at Birmingham Employment Tribunal against a claim of race and disability discrimination and victimisation. Numerous allegations were relied upon by the Claimant. Following a lengthy cross examination the Claimant was found to lack credibility and the Respondents witness evidence was preferred in relation to every conflict of fact. All of the Claimant’s claims were dismissed.

Mrs D Dunning v William Hill Organization Limited (2017) 1301766/2017

Successfully represented the Respondent at a 3 day hearing at Birmingham Employment Tribunal against a claim of unfair dismissal. The Claimant was dismissed due to misconduct relating to a gaming machine irregularity. The Tribunal was carefully guided through complex financial gaming machine data in order to understand the allegations. It concluded that the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the Claimant in all of the circumstances and the claim was dismissed.

Mrs J Hislop v Tesco Stores Limited (2018) 3327353/2017
Successfully represented the Respondent at a 3 day hearing at Leeds Employment Tribunal.  The Claimant lodged claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal after being summarily dismissed for serious negligence which was considered by the Respondent to amount to gross misconduct. The Claimant maintained that the reason for dismissal related to capability rather than conduct. However the Tribunal disagreed and found that the Claimant knew or should have known what was expected of her yet failed to act and therefore dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The Tribunal also concluded that the Respondent was contractually entitled to dismiss without notice and the wrongful dismissal claim also failed.

E.Brown v Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust (2017) 1802038/2017
Successfully represented the Claimant at a 5 day hearing at Leeds Employment Tribunal. She brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability and a failure to make reasonable adjustments following her dismissal from a Band 5 nursing position. The Employment Tribunal concluded that the Claimant's dismissal amounted to discrimination arising from disability.

E.Osifo v British Gas Trading Limited (2017) 2400140/2017
Successfully represented the Claimant at a 4 day hearing at Manchester Employment Tribunal.The Claimant was disabled due to a hearing condition. He worked as a call centre customer services advisor and suffered considerable stress due to technical problems with the Respondent's computer system that lead to long term absence. The tribunal concluded that the Claimant's dismissal due to absence was discrimination arising from disability and that there was a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal also upheld the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim and indicated that based on the evidence at the liability stage it would not be minded to make a Polkey reduction. 

Peel v Together Housing Association Limited (2017) 1800315/2017
Successfully represented the Respondent against a claim of unfair dismissal. The Claimant argued that his dismissal was not within the band of reasonable responses on the grounds that he had not acted in an intimidatory manner by alighting from his work vehicle, whilst wearing his work uniform, to approach another motorist during a 'road rage' incident. The Tribunal found that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

Zlotnikova v STA Travel Ltd (2017) 2400180/2017
Successfully represented the Claimant who was made redundant during her pregnancy. Claims of ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy/maternity leave and unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy were lodged. All claims succeeded and the Tribunal noted that the Respondent had failed to provide an innocent, non-discriminatory reason for its treatment of the Claimant. It was also concluded that the risk of the Claimant being fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy was relatively small.

Telat Toy v Chief Constable of Leicestershire (2017) EAT Rule 3(10) hearing
Represented the Claimant at a 7 day hearing at the Leicester Employment Tribunal which was unsuccessful. This appeal was unsuccessful at the sift stage however it was successfully argued before HHJ Richardson that the Appellant's grounds of appeal had a real prospect of success. Consequently all 5 grounds of appeal were permitted to proceed to a substantive EAT hearing.

Stephen Creighton v Together Housing Association (2016) 2400978/2016
Successfully represented the Respondent at a hearing at the Manchester Employment Tribunal. The Claimant was dismissed due to abusive Twitter posts which referred to his colleagues, employer and the Respondent's service users. The ET found in favour of the Respondent and concluded that dismissal was in the band of reasonable responses.

Midgeley v ESP Global Holdings Ltd (2016) 3302735/2015
Represented the Respondent during a four day hearing at Reading Employment Tribunal against a race/age discrimination and unfair dismissal claim. The discrimination claims were withdrawn following cross examination and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as the tribunal found that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that the Claimant was guilty of the misconduct alleged.

Bourini and Ors v Casual Dining Services Ltd (2016) 2201474/2015, 2201475/2015 and 2201476/2015
Represented three Claimants in a group action against a large restaurant chain which trades as Café Rouge and Bella Italia. The Respondent alleged that the Claimants employment would be transferring under the TUPE Regulations to another restaurant chain. It was proven that no such transfer took place and that the Claimants were unfairly dismissed. A costs application was made against the Respondent following the hearing which resulted in a substantial costs award in favour of the Claimants.

Ham v Beardwood Humanities College [2015] UKEATPA/0996/14/MC
Represented an Appellant before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The appeal related to whether the ET had property considered the question of warning upon reaching the conclusion that the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It was found by HHJ Richardson at the 3(10) hearing that it was reasonably arguable that it had not.
Although the appeal was ultimately unsuccessful HHJ Eady QC described the attempts by Anisa Niaz-Dickinson to persuade her to allow the appeal as "valiant".

Banks v St Monica's RC High School [2015] 2403670/2015
Successfully represented the Respondent against a claim of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination and harassment. The matter was heard during a 4 day hearing at Manchester Employment Tribunal. The tribunal dismissed all claims Of disability discrimination and harassment and found that it was likely that the Claimant resigned because he became aware, while monitoring his employers emails without permission, that he was about to be suspended and not because of anything done by his employer.

Bangura -Lomax v Emerson Management Services Ltd and Others [2015] 2412556/2013
Successfully represented the Respondent, a property development company, against claims of sex discrimination, sexual/racial harassment and race discrimination during a 3 day hearing at Manchester Employment Tribunal. The case involved a cleaner who claimed that the Respondent's employees sexually/ racially harassed her when she was cleaning at the Respondent's premises. All claims of discrimination and harassment were dismissed.

Davies v West Midlands Police [2015] ET 1302487/2014
Instructed to represent the Claimant in a whistleblowing claim which was heard in Birmingham Employment tribunal over 10 days. The claim was successful and currently a remedy hearing is awaited.

Branch v Salford City Council [2014] ET 2413445/12 & 2405003/13
Instructed by the Respondent to defend a claim of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The claim was dismissed after a 5 day hearing at Manchester Employment Tribunal.

Mather v Greater Manchester Police [2014] ET 2402762/2013
Instructed to represent the Claimant in an indirect sex discrimination and victimisation claim heard at Manchester Employment Tribunal over 7 days. The claim was upheld.

Arnold v Comet (in Administration) [2014] ET 1102571/2012 & ORS
Instructed to represent 192 United Road Transport Union (URTU) Claimants in a lengthy and complex failure to consult claim under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (1992) ("TULR(C)A (1992)"). The claims were upheld and each Claimant was awarded a protective award.

J v P [2014] 1603940/2013
Instructed to represent a dyslexic employee in a claim of indirect disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments during a promotion recruitment procedure. The claim was upheld and the Claimant was awarded a middle band Vento injury to feelings award.


 

"Adept at handling complex and high-profile cases in the Employment Tribunal and the EAT. She is experienced in handling a wide range of employment concerns including whistle-blowing, unfair dismissal, discrimination and harassment. She handles cases for both claimants and respondents." 

Chambers UK

Profile

Anisa is a personable and tenacious advocate who is recommended by both Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 as a leading junior Barrister within the field of employment law. She practices exclusively within the employment jurisdiction and across the full breadth of employment law. Her practice covers a wide range of sectors such as business, the Police (instructed by the Police Federation), education, the NHS, and the public sector. She has represented some of the UK’s largest employers such as Tesco, Asda, William Hill, and Yodel and has been instructed in high profile cases that have received media attention as well as group actions involving multiple Claimants. She has a particular interest in discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing claims.

Anisa has a passion for employment law and is committed to providing outstanding representation to both Respondents and Claimants. She is able to provide exceptional client care, meticulous and efficient preparation and proven advocacy skills.

Significant Reported Cases

DL Insurance Services Ltd v Mrs S O’Connor: UKEAT/0230/17/LA 

Mr T Toy v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2017) UKEAT/0230/17/LA 

Lesley Ham v Beardwood Humanities College [2015] UKEATPA/0996/14/MC

Onyango v Berkeley Solicitors [2013] UKEAT/0407/12

Court of Appeal:  Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd (trading as Stansted Express) [2006] EWCA Civ 1358 : Leading case on jurisdiction.

 

Year of Call: 2004
 

 

Areas of Expertise

Employment Law

 
Memberships

Employment Lawyers Association
 

Recommendations

Ranked in Chambers & Partners 2017 & 2018:
"Adept at handling complex and high-profile cases in the Employment Tribunal and the EAT. She is experienced in handling a wide range of employment concerns including whistle-blowing, unfair dismissal, discrimination and harassment. She handles cases for both claimants and respondents."

Ranked Tier 1 in Legal 500 2016 & 2017:
Anisa is recommended in the Legal 500 2016 and 2017 for her employment practice. The Legal 500 2017 describes her as being "persuasive, diligent and tenacious".

 

 

Flagship Conferences

    2018 programme coming soon

© Copyright 2018 Kings Chambers. All rights reserved.

Scroll to Top