Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC

1. Sargeant v London Fire Commissioner

   UKEAT/137/17; [2021] ICR 1057

   Construction of s61 Equality Act 2010 (non-discrimination rule for occupational pension schemes) and defence in Schedule 22 para 1(1).

2. Community Based Care Health Ltd v Narayan

   [2019] UKEAT/0162/18 (EAT)

   Employment status of ‘out of hours’ GP; whether the undisclosed principal doctrine applies.

3. Ahmed v Cardinal Hume Academies

   [2019] UKEAT/0196/18 (EAT)

   Correct test for harassment and direct disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

4. Braine & Others v The National Gallery

   2201625/2018 (ET)

   Employment status of gallery educators; whether s188 TULRCA claims should be extended to “workers” by reference to Directive 98/59 on collective redundancies.

5. Seahorse Maritime Ltd v Nautilus International

   [2018] EWCA Civ 2789, [2019] IRLR 286 (CA) [2017] ICR 1463, UKEAT/281/16 (EAT)

   Where crews were supplied to operate ships outside the UK, whether each ship was a separate ‘establishment’ for the purposes of consultation, and the correct approach to territoriality in a claim for collective redundancy consultation under s188 TULRCA.

6. King v Sash Window Workshop

   Case C-214/16, [2018] 2 CMLR 10, [2018] ICR 693, [2017] IRLR 142 (CJEU)

   Whether a payment in lieu of paid annual leave falls due at termination of a worker/employer relationship for the entirety of that relationship notwithstanding that both parties considered the claimant a worker at the material time.

7. Hayes & Others v Qantas Cabin Crew (UK) Ltd

   3347009/2016 (ET)

   Whether requirement to undertake airline standby duty shifts constituted indirect sex discrimination.

8. Baker v Peninsula Business Services Ltd

   [2017] ICR 714, [2017] IRLR 394 (EAT)

   Whether asserting a protected characteristic is enough to bring a claimant within the scope of harassment protection.

9. UN Judge for Staff Appeals

   Advising in relation to misconduct allegations against a UN Civil Servant.

10. Hainsworth v MOD

    (2015, SC); [2014] 3 CMLR 43 (CA); and [2013] Eq LR 1159 (EAT)

    Whether the duty to make reasonable adjustments extends to carers of disabled people.

11. Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services

    [2014] ICR 935 (CA)

    Whether the EAT should remit or substitute following a successful appeal.

12. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Keohane

    [2014] ICR 1073 (EAT)

    The causal test to be applied in cases of pregnancy discrimination.

13. Portnykh v Nomura Plc

    [2014] IRLR 251 (EAT)

    The extent of the ‘without prejudice’ rule and EAT costs orders in respect of appeal fees.

14. Qantas Cabin Crew (UK) Ltd v Lopez

    [2013] IRLR 4 (EAT)

    Construction of employment contracts concerning allowances, doctrine of mistake and time in unauthorised deductions claims.

15. Edwards v Chesterfield

    [2012] 2 AC 22 (SC), [2011] QB 339 (CA)

    The application of the Johnson v Unisys principle to express contractual terms in common law breach of contract claim.

16. English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds

    [2009] 2 CMLR 18 (CA)

    Whether a straight claimant could be harassed as gay when known not to be.

17. Enfield Technical Services v Payne

    [2008] ICR 1423 (CA)

    The scope of the illegality doctrine.

18. Palfrey v Transco Plc

    [2004] IRLR 916 (EAT)

    Agreements to vary effective date of termination; per incuriam EAT decisions.

19. Secretary of State for Justice v The POA

    (2016, HC)

    Injunction to restrain industrial action by prison officers following the release of health and safety information within the prison estate.

20. Secretary of State for Education v The NUT

    [2016] EWHC 812 (QB), [2016] IRLR 512 (HC)

    On the ability of a third party to an employment relationship to obtain declaratory interim relief on lawfulness of industrial action

21. Advising compatibility of the Trade Union Bill 2015 with the ECHR.

22. RMT v UK

    (2015) 60 EHRR 10 (ECtHR)

    On the issue of whether the provisions of TULRECA constitute an unjustifiable interference with Art 11 ECHR (drafting of application).

23. BA Cabin Crew Industrial action and related litigation (2009-10, HC), including Christmas strike injunction

    [2010] IRLR 423

24. EDF Energy Powerlink Ltd v RMT

    [2010] IRLR 114 (HC)

    On whether strike lawful given requirement to give notice of industrial action under s226A TULRCA.

Download Employment CV

1. The DePuy Pinnacle Metal-on-Metal Hip Group Litigation: Gee v DePuy International Ltd

   [2018] EWHC 1208 (QB), [2018] Med LR 347 (HC, QBD)

   Whether Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implants were defective within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Product Liability Directive; correct approach to determining defectiveness and causation (4 month trial).

2. Whirlpool Tumble Dryers

   (2016-date)
   Acting in relation to regulatory decisions and individual claims arising from tumble dryers that were liable to catch on fire (featured on BBC’s Watchdog programme).

3. The PIP Breast Implant Group Litigation

   (2010-date, HC). The Lawyer top 20 cases of 2016

   Claims against private clinics, credit card companies and insurers concerning whether PIP silicone breast implants were of satisfactory quality.

4. XYZ v Travelers Insurance Co Ltd 

   [2019] UKSC 48; [2019] 1 WLR 6075 (SC); [2018] EWCA Civ 1099, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep IR 636 (CA); [2017] EWHC 287 (QB), [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 269 (HC)

   Section 51 Supreme Court Act 1981 costs application against non-party insurers in the context of a GLO.

5. Holloway v Transform Medical Group (CS) Ltd

   [2014] EWHC 1641

   Application to add further claimants to a GLO register.

6. The Mix-Match Hip Litigation

   (2014-2018, HC)

   Claims against surgeons concerning whether they manufactured a defective product by combining hip implant components from different manufacturers when performing hip surgery

7. The ASR Hip Special Arbitration Process

   (2015-18, arbitration process).

8. The Sabril Group Litigation

   (2007-2010, HC)

   Claims concerning whether the epilepsy drug Sabril was a defective product under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Product Liability Directive.

Download Product Liability and Consumer Rights CV

1. Lowe v Secretary of State for the Home Department

   [2021] EWCA Civ 62, [2021] Imm AR 792 (CA)

   Integration and permissibility of UT’s own assessment of the facts.

2. R (Mahmood) v UT; ME (Malaysia); and RK (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

   [2020] 3 WLR 723

   Meaning of “serious harm” within statutory deportation regime.

3. HA (Iraq); RA (Iraq); AA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

   [2022] UKSC 22; [2022] 1 WLR 3784 (and previously [2020] HRLR 21, CA)

   How to apply the “unduly harsh” test in relation to qualifying children when assessing whether the effect of deportation on a foreign criminal would breach the convention right to private and family life. Relevance of rehabilitation and seriousness of the offending.

4. MA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

   [2019] EWCA Civ 1252 (CA)

   Whether a change in the law provided a basis for a decision to deport; whether deportation contrary to legitimate expectations; whether very compelling circumstances made out.

5. JG (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

   [2019] EWCA Civ 982 (CA)

   Whether judge correct to find very compelling circumstances for deportation; whether a separate assessment of article 8 was legitimate outside of the statutory regime.

6. Binbuga v Secretary of State for the Home Department

   [2019] EWCA Civ 55, [2019] Imm AR 1026; [2019] INLR 403, CA

   Test for “persistent offender”; whether ‘social and cultural integration’ meant lawful integration or whether it could be established by membership of a criminal gang; relevance of appellant being a “home grown criminal”.

7. MS (Philippines) and RA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

   [2019] UKUT 122 (IAC), [2019] Imm AR 767; [2019] INLR 607, UT (IAC)

   Approach to aspects of deportation post KO (Nigeria).

8. KO (Nigeria) & others v Secretary of State for the Home Department

   [2018] UKSC 53, [2018] 1 WLR 5273, [2019] 1 All ER 675 (SC) [2016] EWCA Civ 617, [2016] Imm AR 954, [2017] INLR 15 (CA)

   Whether, when assessing if the effect of deportation of a foreign criminal on a qualifying child is unduly harsh, the determination must be based solely on child-centric considerations or should take into account criminality and immigration history.

9. SC (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

   [2018] EWCA Civ 929 (CA)

   Meaning of ‘persistent offender’ under statutory scheme; whether that status, once acquired, can be lost.

10. GD (Ghana) v SSHD

    [2017] EWCA Civ 1126, [2018] Imm AR 63, [2017] INLR 882 (CA)

    Impact of Family Court orders on Secretary of State’s power to deport; effect of s11(5) Children Act 1989 on a residence order upon resumption of parents living together.

11. KG (Trinidad) v SSHD

    [2017] EWCA Civ 789 (CA)

    Correct test to apply under s117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

12. IT (Jamaica) v SSHD

    [2017] EWCA Civ 207 and [2016] EWCA Civ 301 (CA)

    Whether circumstances sufficiently exceptional to avoid deportation; whether freestanding assessment of article 8 considerations permissible.

13. LT (Kosovo) and DC (Jamaica) v SSHD

    [2016] EWCA Civ 1246 (CA)

    Whether criminality had caused “serious harm” for the purposes of deportation regime; weight to be attached to Secretary of State’s view.

14. JZ (Zambia) v SSHD

    [2016] EWCA Civ 116, [2016] Imm AR 781 (CA)

    Whether factors in Immigration Rules 399 and 399A could form part of the aggregation of matters which collectively constituted “exceptional circumstances” for the purposes of avoiding deportation under Rule 398.

15. Keyu v Secretary of State (Batang Kali Judicial Review)

    [2015] UKSC 69, [2016] AC 1355, [2015] 3 WLR 1665, [2016] HRLR 2 (SC)

    Whether Article 2 ECHR or customary international law required a public inquiry into historic deaths occurring in Batang Kali, Malaysia in 1948. Whether the standard of irrationality review should be Wednesbury review or proportionality review, and whether decision not to hold an inquiry was irrational.

16. JA (Ghana) v SSHD

    [2015] EWCA Civ 1031 (CA)

    Whether UT, having identified error of law, was correct to reach a fresh determination rather than to remit.

17. RMT v UK

    (2015) 60 EHRR 10 (ECtHR)

    Whether the provisions of TULRECA constitute an unjustifiable interference with Art 11 ECHR (drafting of application following EDF Energy Powerlink Ltd v RMT [2010] IRLR 114).

18. Advising compatibility of the Trade Union Bill 2015 with the ECHR.

Download Public CV

1. AFEX v IFEX

   [2010] EWHC 1178 (Ch), [2010] IRLR 964

   On the enforceability of restrictive covenants in the context of the foreign exchange industry.

Download Recent cases CV