The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that £200,000-a-year stripper Nadine Quashie was an employee of Stringfellows club, paving the way for her unfair dismissal claim against the club.
John Hendy QC
Old Square Chambers John Hendy QC was instructed at the EAT by Bindmans partner Shah Qureshi to lead Tooks Chambers’ Catherine Rayner for Quashie.
Cloisters’ Caspar Glyn QC, who took silk in the 2012 round, was instructed by Davenport Lyons partner Marie van der Zyl for Stringfellows.
The EAT overturned the first-instance ruling that Quashie was self employed and therefore unable to pursue her claim, stating that: “The judge’s repeated conclusion that there was no mutuality of obligation is frankly wrong.”
Judge McMullen QC, who heard the appeal, said the concession made by Glyn at the appeal stage that a contract existed between the appellant and respondent meant she was employed by the club.
“It seems to me that the vista has changed in the light of the realistic concession, properly made by Mr Glyn, that on each night the claimant was engaged she had a contract,” the judge said, adding that just because she was paid in vouchers did not render her self employed - she was still paid.
The judgment stated: “On each night she attended the claimant was obliged to work as directed by the management.
“If she didn’t provide the free dances or other duties, she could be fined. I infer from the findings that if the claimant were directed to a customer, she could not refuse.
“It seems to me that mere attendance on the night is pursuant to a requirement that she work; that is, that she turn up and stay throughout the night shift on pain of fine or deduction.”
Her unfair dismissal claim will now be referred back to the Employment Tribunal (ET).
A cross appeal by the respondents claiming that any contract would be illegal since it was directly prohibited by statute or it became illegal in its performance was also referred to the ET.