Nominated for the Bar Pro Bono Award 2017

Chambers & Partners 2025: (Employment) "Clients love him." "Ed is someone we turn to often." "Ed leads a legal team with real class."

Legal 500 2025: “An immensely skilled advocate. He is a true team player and very persuasive in court.”

Chambers & Partners 2024: "Ed is absolutely fantastic with clients and a brilliant strategist and tactician. He is extremely commercial and pragmatic. He is our go-to counsel on complex employment matters." "He is very strong on black-letter law, providing strong advocacy particularly in statutory hearings." "He is particularly good at cross-examination, really adding value here. He is very down to earth, approachable, user-friendly and good on his feet."

Legal 500 2024: “Ed is persuasive, calm under pressure and easy to work with. His advocacy is first-rate. His submissions are well-considered and his cross-examination incisive.”

Chambers & Partners 2023: "Ed is extremely responsive, very able and an extremely strategic and tactical silk." "He is a top-class lawyer with excellent client-facing skills."

Legal 500 2023: “A true star of the employment law field - immensely calm, skilful and collaborative, with strong analytical skills that are matched with persuasive advocacy. An outstanding team player, who is also excellent in the appeal courts.”

Chambers & Partners 2022: "He is really responsive to clients and he puts one hundred per cent into his case preparation, which leads to good results." "He is extremely hard-working, he is very accessible and he is approachable." "He is really personable and he is able to explain cases in a really straightforward way, which allows him to engage the court."

Legal 500 2022: "Very bright, calm under pressure and a delight to deal with. Clients and instructing solicitors alike love working with him."

Chambers & Partners 2021: "He's unflappable, hard-working and extremely bright." "He is so down-to-earth and accomplished he makes everyone feel at ease; he's exceptional."

Chambers & Partners 2020: "He's a very bright lawyer who is very considered and excellent at putting clients at ease." "On the ball and hard-working. He's approachable and is a real team player."

Legal 500 2020: "Relates to clients well and is excellent at acting for vulnerable individuals."

Chambers & Partners 2019: "Skilled employment and discrimination law practitioner who is often instructed in appellate cases. He acts for employers and employees from a range of sectors including finance and education." "He is bright and provides exceptional client care. His good preparation invariably leads to good results." "Very diligent, calm and a great team player. He has an excellent knowledge of the law and is client-focused."

Legal 500 2019: “A strong advocate who provides clear and concise advice.”

Chambers & Partners 2018: "Very thorough. He shows outstanding commitment to his clients success."

Chambers & Partners 2017: Skilled employment and discrimination law practitioner who is often instructed in appellate cases by public bodies and clients from the banking and education sectors. Clients are keen to highlight his masterful advocacy style." “He is very thorough and shows outstanding commitment to the client's success." "He is very good, especially his skeleton arguments and his cross-examinations."

Legal 500 2017: "An excellent all-round lawyer with an unflappable and calm manner."

Chambers & Partners 2016: "Rated very highly for the service that he provides to clients of all kinds, from major private companies to individual plaintiffs. His advocacy is also highlighted as a key strength." "A strong advocate, who is client-friendly and approachable." "He provides very through and well-reasoned advice."

Legal 500 2016: "His employment law knowledge is excellent and he is a great resource in litigation."

Chambers & Partners 2015: "Very diligent and extremely bright."

Chambers & Partners 2014: "He's very strong on discrimination issues and we'd implicitly trust him to deal with matters in that area." "His manner with opposition witnesses is charming, although he remains steely and determined to expose any holes in the opposition's case."

Legal 500 2014: "An employment law barrister expert at handling complex discrimination cases, who impresses peers through his diligence and courtroom performances."

Member of Industrial Law Society

Member of Employment Lawyers Association

Member of Employment Law Barristers Association

Member of the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute

Accredited Mediator

Ed has been a visiting human rights lecturer at Nottingham Law School

Ed is currently a member of the College of Law's higher rights teaching panel. He also teaches civil litigation courses (run by the College of Law) at city law firms.

CHARITY WORK

Ed is a co-founder and trustee of ‘Cricket Without Boundaries' - a charity dedicated to using cricket to raise awareness of HIV/AIDS and bridging ethnic divisions in Africa (www.cricketwithoutboundaries.com).

Ed is co-author of the chapter on Employment Tribunal Procedure and the Dispute Resolution Regulations in Sweet and Maxwell's Discrimination Law for Employment Lawyers.

Ed regularly writes for national media on issues ranging from industrial disputes to race discrimination.

BA Nottingham

• Crabb & Ors v TUI Airways Ltd [2025] IRLR 32, KBD

• Pipe v Coventry University Higher Education Corporation [2024] IRLR 514, CA (whether a requirement for a PHD amounts to disability discrimination).

• R. (on the application of Peters) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 3182 (Admin) | [2021] 11 WLUK 387: a Judicial review challenge to the Government’s mandatory Covid vaccination requirement for care home workers.

• University College London v Brown [2021] IRLR 200, EAT: the first appellate case to consider the degree of protection offered to a Trade Union official when using work email communications to exercise Trade Union freedom.

• Henderson v GMB [2017] IRLR 340, CA; [2015] IRLR 451, EAT: whether left wing democratic socialism is a protected belief under EA 2010.

• Rabess v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority [2017] IRLR 147, CA: whether calculating time limits for unfair dismissal should be governed by the common law (as per Societe Generale v Geys) or by statute.

• Sandle v Adecco UK Ltd [2016] IRLR 941, EAT: whether there can be a dismissal by omission in relation to an agency worker.

• Hyde Housing Association v Layton [2016] ICR 261, [2016] IRLR 107, EAT: whether there can be a TUPE transfer from sole to joint employment where the transferor is one of the joint and several employers post transfer.

• Smania v Standard Chartered Bank [2015] ICR 436, [2015] IRLR 271, EAT: whether jurisdictional bar for whistleblowing should be set at lower level than for ordinary ERA 1996 claims.

• Camurat v Thurrock Borough Council [2014] EWHC 2482, QB, [2015] E.L.R 1: whether employers and ex employers owe the employee any duty of care when making safeguarding disclosures to the relevant bodies.

• Moran v Ideal Cleaning and Celanese [2014] 2 C.M.L.R 37, [2014] ICR 442, EAT, [2014] I.R.L.R. 172: the first appellate case re the scope of the Agency Directive and UK Regulations, in particular the meaning of the word "temporary".

• X v. Mid-Sussex CAB, [2011] ICR 460 CA: whether volunteers are protected under the Framework Directive from discrimination).

• Buckland v. Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation [2010] QB 323, [2010] 3 W.L.R. [2010] ICR 908, CA: a case that attracted significant media interest concerning allegations of 'dumbing down' of academic standards and which raised a novel but important point of law on the correct legal test to be applied in constructive dismissal cases.

• Governing Body of X Endowed Primary School v T [2009] IRLR 1007, [2010] E.L.R. 1: whether a manifestation/symptom of ADHD which is a tendency to violence can be a disability under DDA 1995.

• Muschett v. Hounslow LBC [2009] ICR 424, EAT: a case concerning when the EAT will extend time for serving a Notice of Appeal.

• Bull v. Nottinghamshire & City of Nottingham Fire & Rescue Authority [2007] ICR 1631, CA: A national test case concerning 'co-responding' whereby fire-fighters were required to answer calls to the ambulance service.

• HM Prison Service v. Johnson [2007] IRLR 951, EAT: A complex disability discrimination appeal concerning the scope of reasonable adjustments.