The Latest from Cloisters

News, Publications, Policies, Events and Blogs
Featured

Tom Coghlin and Navid Pourghazi Nominated for Bar Pro Bono Award

Tom Coghlin and Navid Pourghazi have been nominated for this year’s Bar Pro Bono Award partly due to their success in Efobi v Royal Mail Group which contained significant commentary on the burden of proof in discrimination claims.  The winner will be announced at the Bar Conference on 4 November 2017.
Featured

The EAT issues guidance on in-time amendment applications

Navid Pourghazi considers the recent decision in Gillett v Bridge 86 Ltd (UKEAT/0015/17/DM) where the EAT overturned a refusal of an in-time application to amend a claim form and provided helpful guidance on how Tribunals should deal with such applications in the future.  A copy of the judgment is available here . Analysis The Claimant present...
Continue reading
Featured

Cloisters contribute to practitioners’ guide on religious discrimination

Cloisters contribute to practitioners’ guide on religious discrimination
Schona Jolly QC and Navid Pourghazi have written an introductory guide to religious discrimination in the workplace for Westlaw’s Insight.  Westlaw describe Insight as “an online, dynamic, continually updated and ever-growing encyclopaedia of UK law”. Content on the website is aimed at practitioners with a broad understanding of the law who ar...
Continue reading
Featured

Cloisters has entered its team in this year’s London Legal Walk, which is taking place on 22 May 2017

Cloisters has entered its team in this year’s London Legal Walk, which is taking place on 22 May 2017
The London Legal Walk is an iconic annual event in which thousands of barristers, solicitors, judges, and law students take part in a sponsored 10km walk in Central London to raise money for free legal advice centres. In 2016, over 10,000 people took part and raised over £740,000. Cloisters has a proud history of fundraising for this event, and our...
Continue reading
Featured

Deposit Orders: Not to be used as a “strike out through the back door”

Deposit Orders: Not to be used as a “strike out through the back door”
Chris Milsom succeeds before the EAT in Hemdan v Ishmail & Ors in an important case about the appropriate amount of a deposit order against someone who has very low means to pay. Navid Pourghazi discusses the case .   The facts The Claimant, who was a victim of trafficking, claimed that she had been employed in circumstances that amounted ...
Continue reading