Profile

• LLB (Hons)
• Called 1996 (Lincoln's Inn)
• Member of the Employment Lawyers Association
• Accepts instructions via Direct Public Access

Sami is a specialist employment practitioner with an extensive employment practice. He acts for employers and employees. Sami is regularly instructed by a broad range of clients including local authorities, non departmental public bodies, City and large regional solicitors firms as well as by the HR and legal departments of a number of high profile national and international companies.

'Sami Rahman is a tenacious advocate who provides very sound pragmatic advice to clients'

             Guy Hollebon, Director, Solicitor and Head of Employment, Bevans Solicitors

EMPLOYMENT

Sami has considerable experience in:

• representing claimants and respondents in high profile and complex discrimination claims with successes in disability, race, sex and religious discrimination cases;
• drafting a wide range of employment policies and procedures, employment contracts, matters relating to grievances and dismissals;
• non-contentious employment matters;
• advising on complex reorganisations, redundancy processes, discrimination issues, TUPE, freedom of information, data protection, the working time holiday and national minimum wage provisions, restrictive covenants, the use of confidential information and springboard claims.

Sami has a friendly, professional, accessible yet authoritative, client focused approach. He is renowned for his advocacy skills and has generated a loyal and growing client following.

Sami appears regularly in Employment Tribunals covering England and Wales, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Sami is an active and proactive member of the employment team and a regular speaker at numerous employment seminars and events. He recently took part in a television phone-in discussion on employment law issues. Sami was visiting lecturer at the University of Westminster. He is also currently writing a series of articles, the first of which will deal with the circumstances in which claims can be or should be struck out in employment tribunals.

PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE

Sami regularly advises and represents Doctors, Nurses, Chemists and Social work processionals facing disciplinary proceedings.

CIVIL

Sami has an active commercial/civil practice and is an experienced and successful civil practitioner.

RECENT AND CURRENT NOTABLE CASES:

G v a Non Departmental Public Body (2009 and ongoing) * 

The current claims are the fourth and fifth employment tribunal claims of victimisation, direct disability, failures to make reasonable adjustments and harassment (disability). The Claimant having recently been dismissed for gross misconduct as a result of a breach of the Respondent's confidentiality and IT policies, the Respondent is now awaiting the sixth claim. Essentially the Claimant having succeeded in her claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments (the first claim almost two years ago, in respect of which Sami was not instructed), she has since refused to accept various reasonable management instructions and attempted to dictate how, when, with whom she will work, her place of work, duties and hours regardless of the Respondent's business needs. Any attempt by the Respondent to reasonably manage the Claimant or obtain any medical information in order to make reasonable adjustments, is presented by the Claimant as disability discrimination and/or victimisation. Sami successfully defended the most recent set of claims (two and three) in November 2009, over a two week hearing. He is instructed on behalf of the Respondent at an upcoming PHR (claims four and five) and is likely to be instructed in respect of the inevitable claims that will arise out the Claimant's dismissal (claim six).

B v a Non Departmental Public Body (2009 and ongoing) * 

This case involves various disability discrimination claims (harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments and direct disability discrimination) brought in the Employment Tribunal. The Claimant originally brought various claims for race discrimination which have now either been struck out or been withdrawn. It took the Claimant almost two years to come anywhere near particularising his claims so that the Respondent understood the case it had to meet. Sami was instructed on behalf of the Respondent at a recent two day PHR at which 75 per cent of the claims brought were struck out (primarily on the basis of jurisdictional issues and failed attempts to amend the claims) and a costs order was made against the Claimant arising out his repeated refusal or inability to particularise his claims despite being represented by a solicitor that held himself out to be an employment law practitioner. The claims essentially arise out the Claimant's failure to successfully complete two training programmes, despite various and numerous adjustments made by the Respondent.

S v a Local Authority (2010 and ongoing) *

Sami was instructed on behalf of the Respondent to defend claims brought by the Claimant in the Employment Tribunal in respect of the National Minimum Wage Act provisions. The Claimant is a care worker who as part of his role is required to sleep on the premises. The Claim relates to these sleep in period in respect of which the Claimant has been paid an allowance that means that his hourly rate including the period that he sleep in is now in excess of the applicable national minimum wage rate (any historical shortfalls having been accepted by the Respondent and having been paid). The Claimant however maintains that he should be paid his contractual hourly rate (well in excess of the applicable national minimum wage rate), this despite the contractual position stating that he is only allowed the allowance referred to above (the Claimant essentially being paid his contractual rate if he is unable to sleep because he needs to attend to any emergencies). Same is due to attend a PHR in the coming months in this case, where the Claimant has been asked to provide particulars of the exact amounts claimed over the relevant period and how they are calculated and the exact basis of the contractual claim. Cases applicable are Smith v Oxfordshire NHS Trust UKEAT/0176/09/CEA and MacCartney v Oversley House Management [2006] IRLR 514.

A v a Local Authority & A Union (2010) *

This was a Hogg v Dover [1990] ICR 39 EAT type claim on the face of the particulars set out in the ET1, however on hearing the Claimant's (a union official) evidence that the local authority somehow exercised any control over the union's decision to terminate a secondment which formed the basis of the Hogg type claim, the claims against the local authority were found to be wholly misconceived. There were also a number PIDA (whistle blowing) claims brought against the local authority and the union, these were also dismissed at the end of a two day PHR, during which both the Claimant and witnesses for the Respondents gave evidence. Sami was instructed on behalf of the local authority and more than assisted in the dismissal of the PIDA claims against the union.

Bacchus v Tuffnells Parcels Express Limited (2010)

Sami successfully appeared on behalf of the Claimant in this multiday unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim, which was heard at Southampton Employment Tribunal in January 2010. The dismissing officer admitted during the course of Sami's cross examination of him, that the complaints relied on by the Respondent were in reality capability rather than conduct matters and with hindsight the Respondent should have adopted the capability procedure, rather than approach the issue as conduct. The Tribunal unsurprisingly thereafter found that the Claimant had in fact been unfairly dismissed as the real reason for the Claimant's dismissal was capability and the way the Respondent approached the issue was unfair and not an appropriate way to deal with capability issues.

Z v a Non Departmental Pubic Body Court of Appeal (2010) *

Sami was instructed on behalf of 16 Respondents in this appeal brought by a former employee from the decision of the EAT to dismiss her appeal. The appeal was dismissed by Lord Justice Elias.

Z v a Non Departmental Public Body EAT (2009) *

Sami represented 16 Respondents at the ET and then EAT. Her race and sex discrimination claims had been struck out by the ET on the basis of the Claimant's non compliance with an Unless Order. The appeal to the EAT brought by the Claimant was on the basis of apparent bias and that the Unless Order was disproportionate. The Claimant maintained that the claims should be reinstated as a result of the incorrect application of r3.9 of the CPR (relief from sanctions) as proportionality was not expressly referred to by the Employment Judge. Sami successfully resisted this appeal on behalf of the Respondents. Key cases considered were; Chukwudebelu v Chubb Security Personnel Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 327 (4 March 2008), Tisson v Telewest communication (2008) UKEAT/0607/07/LA and [2008] ALL ER (D) 42 (MAY), CISC v Beck [2009] EWCA Civ 619, Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v Brady [2006] IRLR 576, The Governing Body of St Albans Girl's School and Hertfordshire County Council v Neary [2009] EWCA Civ 1190.

C v a Non Departmental Public Body (2009) *

Heard in the Employment Tribunal. Sami was instructed on behalf of all the Respondents. The Claimant in an attempt to avoid paying several thousands of pounds worth of lease car payments (in respect of which judgment was entered in favour of those instructing in the County Court where Sami was also instructed, where the Claimant had also brought a race discrimination claim which were also struck out)). All the various race discrimination claims were struck by the Tribunal on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success and on the basis that there was no substantial connection with the former employment per Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group plc [2003] ICR 867. There were two appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and one appeal to the High Court against the 4 strike out orders (including the county court and employment tribunal), all of which were unsuccessful. This litigation has already lasted almost 3 years and is ongoing, Sami is instructed in respect of enforcement of the county court judgment and the costs orders (made in the Tribunal and in the County Court), made against the Claimant.

Dhami v Lloyds TSB Insurance. Court of Appeal (2009)

Sami represented the Appellant who bought an appeal brought on the basis of new evidence not available at trial. Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 cited.

H v a Primary Care Trust (2008) (names changed at client's request and because of the sensitivity of the issues raised).

Sami was instructed on behalf of the Claimant. This was one of four claims against various NHS Trusts and PCTs. All the claims relating to disability discrimination arising out the recruitment process and CRB disclosure. More specifically the link between the disability and convictions per Murray v Newham Citizens Advice Bureau [2003] IRLR 340, Edmund v Butterfield [2005] IRLR 751. The Claims (which were all settled) were pleaded on the basis of failure to make reasonable adjustments rather than simply disability related discrimination which was attacked unsuccessfully at various PHRs as result of the decision in London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm, by the Respondents.

Ahmed v Montana Bakeries (2008)

Heard at Reading Employment Tribunal in front of Employment Judge Hill and two lay employment judges. Sami was instructed on behalf the Claimant and the claims were of unfair dismissal (s98 (4)) ERA and automatically unfair dismissal arising out a health and safety issue (s100 (1) (e)) ERA namely that the employee took appropriate steps to protect himself and others from danger. The Claimant had also made claims of race and religious discrimination. During the course of cross examination (Sami had only got to his second question) the dismissing officer accepted and admitted that the decision dismissal to dismiss the Claimant for unauthorized absence, was not his but that pressure had been put on him by others in the company to dismiss the Claimant, no matter what. At which point the Respondent conceded. Mrs. Hill commented at the time that in all the years she has been sitting she had never seen this happen before. Perhaps a case for Sami's memoirs?

* names changed at client's request and/or because the litigation is ongoing.

Further notable cases involving Sami can be viewed here.

If you would like further information about Sami Rahman's practice, please contact his clerks or call +44 (0)207 405 6114.