The BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community is the authoritative podcast for the latest developments, expert analysis, and practical guidance within the constantly evolving field of employment law.
Each episode presents in-depth discussions with prominent professionals, examining complex legal precedents, legislative amendments, and emerging trends that affect employers, employees, and legal practitioners. Whether seeking to remain current on recent judicial decisions, comprehend the practical ramifications of new regulations, or acquire actionable strategies for managing workplace issues, our podcast provides substantive content specifically designed for the employment law community.
Subscribe to remain informed and equip yourself with the essential knowledge required in today’s dynamic legal environment.
Site
RSS
Apple
Données mises à jour le 16/09/2026
Classements récents
Dernières positions dans les classements Apple Podcasts et Spotify.
Liens partagés entre épisodes et podcasts
Liens présents dans les descriptions d'épisodes et autres podcasts les utilisant également.
Découvrez des podcasts liées à The BDBF Podcast: News and Insights for the Employment Law Community. Explorez des podcasts avec des thèmes, sujets, et formats similaires. Ces similarités sont calculées grâce à des données tangibles, pas d'extrapolations !
Burger v JD Wetherspoon plc - vicarious liability for assault
Épisode 21
mardi 15 septembre 2026 • Durée 15:57
When can an employer be held liable for the actions of an independent contractor? And when does a contractor become so closely integrated into a business that the relationship is considered akin to employment?
In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, employment lawyers Emma Burroughs and Connie Berry explore the Court of Appeal's decision in Burger v Risk Solutions and JD Wetherspoon, an important case on vicarious liability and the distinction between employees and independent contractors.
They discuss how a customer was seriously injured after being assaulted by two door supervisors employed by Risk Solutions at a Wetherspoon pub, why Wetherspoon was ultimately found not to be vicariously liable, and how the courts assessed the relationship between the security contractors and the pub company.
Emma and Connie unpack the two-stage test for vicarious liability, examining when a relationship may be considered akin to employment and the importance of the close connection test when assessing whether a tort was committed in the course of employment.
Listeners will gain practical guidance on:
When an employer can be held vicariously liable for the actions of an independent contractor
How the two-stage test for vicarious liability applies in practice
Why the level of control and integration within a business can be significant
The circumstances in which a contractor may be considered akin to an employee
Practical lessons for employers who regularly engage long-term or embedded contractors
For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into the risks associated with contractor arrangements and the circumstances in which businesses may face vicarious liability for the actions of individuals who are not directly employed by them.
Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF.
Contact BDBF
Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast:News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments.
For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform.
We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes. Drop us a line podcast@bdbf.co.uk
How do you prove discrimination when there is no direct evidence? And when does the burden of proof shift to the employer?
In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, employment lawyers Rose Lim and Clare Brereton explore the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Clifton Diocese v Parker, an important case on the burden of proof in religion or belief discrimination claims.
They discuss the facts behind the case, including the dismissal of a senior finance employee following a dispute over flexible working, the allegations of direct discrimination and harassment based on her lack of Catholic faith, and the Employment Tribunal's approach to the burden of proof.
Rose and Clare unpack the two-stage test under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, examining what a claimant must establish before the burden shifts to the employer, why the Employment Tribunal was found to have incorrectly combined the two stages, and the importance of identifying a clear link between the alleged discriminatory treatment and the relevant protected characteristic.
Listeners will gain practical guidance on:
How the burden of proof operates in discrimination claims
What claimants need to establish at the first stage of the two-stage test
When and how the burden shifts to the employer
Why tribunals must consider each alleged act of discrimination individually
The importance of identifying a clear connection between the treatment and the relevant protected characteristic
Why unfair or wrongful treatment does not necessarily amount to discrimination
How employers can approach cases where the burden of proof has shifted to them
The risks of taking a scattergun approach to pleading discrimination claims
For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into the practical application of the burden of proof in discrimination claims and the importance of keeping the two stages of the statutory test distinct when assessing whether discrimination has occurred.
Protected Conversations, Unprotected Mistakes - Tarbuc v Martello Piling
Épisode 19
lundi 17 août 2026 • Durée 25:09
When does a "protected conversation" lose its protection? And can the way an employer handles a settlement offer come back to bite them?
In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, employment lawyers Amanda Steadman and Emma Burroughs explore the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Tarbuc v Martello Piling Limited, an important case concerning the scope and limits of protected conversations under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They discuss the background to the dispute, which arose after the claimant sought payment of a contractual bonus, and how a subsequent protected conversation led to an offer for him to leave the business. Following his dismissal after a redundancy process, the claimant brought claims including ordinary unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker.
Amanda and Emma unpack the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal's decisions, including the Tribunal's error in treating the section 111A protection as applying to claims beyond ordinary unfair dismissal. They explore the concept of improper behaviour, the importance of considering the cumulative circumstances surrounding a protected conversation, and why factors such as short-notice meetings, the absence of a companion and the time given to consider an offer may be relevant. They also discuss the risks of threats or guarantees of dismissal, covert recordings and the practical steps employers can take to conduct protected conversations more safely.
Listeners will gain practical guidance on:
When section 111A protection applies and the claims it does not cover
What may amount to improper behaviour during a protected conversation
How the circumstances surrounding a meeting can affect whether protection is lost
The risks of making threats or guarantees about dismissal if a settlement offer is rejected
How employers can approach protected conversations cautiously and minimise the risk of the discussions being admitted in evidence
PHI disputes - a new route for Claimants? McMahon v AXA ICAS Ltd
Épisode 18
lundi 3 août 2026 • Durée 09:01
A dismissed employee looking to recover damages for lost permanent health insurance benefits is faced with having to bring a High Court claim, or cap their claim at £25,000 in the Employment Tribunal. But does a claim for unlawful deductions from wages provide a potential route forward?
In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, Nick Wilcox and Theo Nicou explore the Inner House of the Court of Session's decision in McMahon v AXA ICAS Ltd, an important case concerning permanent health insurance (PHI) benefits, unlawful deductions from wages and the effect of dismissal on contractual entitlements. They discuss why the claimant became entitled to PHI benefits after a period of ill health, and how an administrative error meant that the employer had failed to put the relevant insurance policy in place. Following the claimant's dismissal on grounds of ill health capability, the dispute centred on whether she could claim PHI benefits as “wages” beyond the date of termination.
Nick and Theo unpack the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal's decisions before examining why the Inner House took a different approach, finding that the employer could potentially be liable for PHI payments as “wages” after dismissal. They explore the Court's consideration of collateral contractual obligations, implied terms preventing dismissal for the purpose of avoiding benefit obligations, and the possibility that the employment contract continued following a wrongful dismissal.
Listeners will gain practical guidance on:
When permanent health insurance benefits may continue after dismissal
How PHI provisions can operate as contractual obligations owed directly by an employer
The distinction between wages and damages for breach of contract
The circumstances in which an employer may be prevented from dismissing an employee to avoid contractual benefit obligations
The potential implications of the decision for employers and employment contracts
Culture as Compliance: The FCA's new rules on non-financial misconduct
Épisode 17
lundi 20 juillet 2026 • Durée 42:53
How should FCA-regulated firms deal with non-financial misconduct? When can conduct outside work affect an employee's fitness and propriety?
In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, Tom McLaughlin is joined by Nick Wilcox, Partner at BDBF, and James Green, Partner at Burges Salmon, to discuss the FCA's new rules and guidance on non-financial misconduct which come into force in September 2026.
They explore why the FCA has introduced the new regime following recent tribunal decisions, when conduct outside work can become a regulatory issue, and how firms should approach allegations involving bullying, harassment, discrimination and misconduct in employees' private lives. The discussion also examines workplace social events and social media, managers' responsibilities, regulatory references, and the interaction between the FCA's new guidance and wider employment law reforms.
Listeners will gain practical guidance on:
The FCA's new non-financial misconduct rules
Fitness and propriety assessments
Investigating misconduct inside and outside the workplace
Social media, workplace events and managers' responsibilities
The practical implications for FCA-regulated firms and employees
For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel, compliance teams and FCA-regulated firms, this episode provides valuable insight into navigating the FCA's new approach to non-financial misconduct while balancing regulatory obligations with employment law risk.
Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF.
Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast:News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments.For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform.
Chandrashekarappa v Wipro Ltd: Bonus Entitlement and Unlawful Deductions from Wages
Épisode 16
lundi 13 juillet 2026 • Durée 10:57
Can an employer cap a bonus after telling an employee they've earned it? When does a bonus become a legally enforceable entitlement?
In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, employment lawyers Ben Cowdry and Esmat Faiz explore the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Chandrashekarappa v Wipro Ltd (2026), an important case on bonus schemes and unlawful deductions from wages.
They discuss how the employer introduced a new sales bonus scheme without issuing a formal policy, why an employee expected a bonus of more than £500,000 only to be told it was capped at $150,000, and how the absence of clear written terms ultimately proved decisive.
Ben and Esmat unpack the Employment Tribunal's original decision before examining why the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employee's entitlement had already crystallised, preventing the employer from imposing additional conditions after the event.
Listeners will gain practical guidance on:
When a bonus becomes a legally enforceable entitlement
Why clear, written bonus policies are essential
The risks of introducing new conditions after a bonus has been approved
How the law on unlawful deductions from wages applies to bonus payments
Practical lessons for employers designing and implementing incentive schemes
For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into drafting and administering bonus schemes while reducing the risk of costly disputes.
Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF.
Contact BDBF
Thank you for tuning in to , where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments.
A Clash of Rights | Reopening the Appeal in Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd
Épisode 15
lundi 6 juillet 2026 • Durée 23:17
When fundamental rights collide in the workplace, how do courts decide who wins?
In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, Partner Clare Brereton and Senior Associate Leigh Janes examine the high-profile case of Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd. The dispute – an actress dismissed after a social media backlash over a historic post expressing her religious belief that homosexuality is a sin – puts two protected characteristics in direct conflict.
But Clare and Leigh’s focus goes beyond the headlines. They dive into the high-stakes procedural battle that followed: Miss Omooba’s attempt to reopen the Court of Appeal's refusal of permission to appeal by invoking the landmark decision in Higgs v Farmor's School.
Listeners will gain insights into:
The "clash of rights" framework and how courts approach competing protected characteristics
The "reason why" test in direct discrimination claims
The exceptionally high threshold for reopening final appeal decisions
The practical implications for employers managing similar conflicts in the workplace
When religion and belief collide, the legal path is rarely straightforward. This is how to navigate the fallout.
Contact BDBF We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes. Drop us a line podcast@bdbf.co.uk
Speaking up in the NHS: A World Whistleblowers’ Day special
Épisode 14
lundi 22 juin 2026 • Durée 30:35
When NHS staff blow the whistle, the consequences can be devastating. How can healthcare professionals raise serious concerns while protecting their careers?
In this special episode of The BDBF Podcast, recorded for World Whistleblowers' Day, employment law partners ClareBrereton and Samantha Prosser discuss the realities of whistleblowing in the NHS – from the legal protections available to the practical challenges of navigating workplace retaliation.
Samantha unpacks the legal definition of a "protected disclosure" and the statutory safeguards shielding whistleblowers from detriment and dismissal. Clare and Samantha examine the hurdles whistleblowers commonly face: proving that detrimental treatment was linked to their disclosure, and the difficulties of finding alternative employment after raising concerns.
Listeners will gain practical guidance on:
The importance of documenting concerns in writing
Using the correct internal channels
Maintaining a professional tone throughout
Seeking legal advice at an early stage
For employment lawyers, healthcare workers and in-house counsel, this episode delivers critical insights into managing the complexities of NHS disclosures.
Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast:News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments.
We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes. Drop us a line podcast@bdbf.co.uk
1997 vs 2027: What History Can Teach Us About the Employment Rights Act
Épisode 12
mardi 26 mai 2026 • Durée 27:43
Can Blair's 1997 reforms help the employment law sector prepare for the forthcoming ERA changes?
In this episode, host Tom McLaughlin is joined by BDBF managing partner Gareth Brahams to draw a direct line between Blair's 1997 employment law reforms and the major changes set to arrive with the Employment Rights Act in 2027.
Drawing on three decades of practice, Gareth traces the parallels between then and now: the reduction of unfair dismissal qualifying periods, rising compensation caps, and the introduction of Working Time Regulations – and what they can tell us about what's coming next.
Listeners will gain insights into:
The scope and background of the Employment Rights Act reforms coming later this year and in 2027
Practical implications for employers and employees, including changes to dismissal rights and compensation
Building organisational capacity and adapting to evolving case law
Navigating political uncertainty and preparing for further legislative developments
With a generation-defining shift in employment law on the horizon, looking to the past might be our best way forward.
Contact BDBF Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast:News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments. For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform. We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes. Drop us a line podcast@bdbf.co.uk Find out more: Website: www.bdbf.co.uk/ Email: Phone: +44(0)20 3828 0350LinkedIn: Facebook:
The Price of a Conditional Job Offer: Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems
Épisode 11
lundi 11 mai 2026 • Durée 20:49
Can you withdraw a job offer once it’s been accepted? Lessons from Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems LTD.
In this episode of The BDBF Podcast, partners Paula Chan and Gareth Brahams discuss the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd.
This case explores what "reasonable notice" means when a job offer is withdrawn after a contract is formed but before the first day of work and draws out the key distinction between “conditions precedent” and “conditions subsequent”.
Listeners will gain insights into:
The factual background and the EAT’s decision in Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems.
The crucial distinction between conditions "precedent" and conditions "subsequent."
Why statutory minimum notice periods do not act as a ceiling for "reasonable notice."
The risks of resigning from a current role before a new contract is fully signed and documented.
Practical steps for employers to manage offer withdrawals and notice obligations.
Best practices for candidates navigating the gap between offer acceptance and their start date.
For employment lawyers and HR leaders, this is a tactical guide to managing the "resignation gap" and avoiding a pre-employment notice trap.
Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF.
Contact BDBF
Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast:News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments.
For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform.
Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF.
Contact BDBF
Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast:News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments.
For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform.
We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes. Drop us a line podcast@bdbf.co.uk
The importance of giving employees reasonable notice, time to consider offers and the opportunity to have a companion
For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into the practical limits of protected conversations and the importance of carefully managing both the substance and circumstances of settlement discussions.
Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF.
Contact BDBF
Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast:News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments.
For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform.
We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes. Drop us a line podcast@bdbf.co.uk
For employment lawyers, HR professionals, in-house counsel and employers, this episode provides valuable insight into the interaction between dismissal, contractual benefits and unlawful deductions from wages, and highlights the importance of carefully drafted PHI provisions in employment contracts.
Disclaimer: Views of external guest speakers do not represent those of BDBF.
Contact BDBF
Thank you for tuning in toThe BDBF Podcast:News and Insights for the Employment Law Community, where we dive into practical guidance, expert analysis, and updates on employment law developments.
For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform.
We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes. Drop us a line podcast@bdbf.co.uk
We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes. Drop us a line podcast@bdbf.co.uk
News and Insights for the Employment Law Community
For more behind-the-scenes content, exclusive events, and expert insights, please visit our website or follow us on your favourite social platform.
We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes. Drop us a line podcast@bdbf.co.uk
Ben advises both employers and employees on contentious and non-contentious matters. Ben’s experience ranged from negotiating severance packages and advising on disciplinary matters to pursuing Employment Tribunal claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. Ben also has experience in advising on and drafting employment contracts and workplace policies. Ben enjoys negotiating favourable outcomes for his clients, whether through alternative dispute resolution or litigation.
linkedin.com/in/ben-cowdry-7548a8196
Esmat Faiz
Esmat is an experienced solicitor who advises senior employees and employers on complex and sensitive workplace issues, delivering clear, strategic guidance to achieve practical and positive outcomes.
She provides guidance to employees on disciplinary processes, grievances, workplace investigations and negotiated exits, always ensuring her clients feel supported and confident throughout challenging situations. Esmat has extensive experience handling whistleblowing claims and discrimination matters across a wide range of grounds, including disability, age, pregnancy and maternity, sex and race, both prior to and in the course of Employment Tribunal claims.
She was promoted to Senior Associate in 2026 in recognition of her technical excellence and client care.
Clare Brereton is a partner at BDBF who specialises in high stakes disputes and strategic workplace advice for senior executives and employers on complex workplace disputes, including those involving partnerships and LLPs.
Leigh is ranked by the 2026 edition of Chambers and Partners as an “Associate to Watch” and advises employers and employees on all aspects of employment law across a wide range of industries and sectors including financial services, recruitment, and hospitality.
Clare Brereton linkedin.com/in/clare-brereton-nee-taylor-36291046/ Clare Brereton is a partner at BDBF who specialises in high stakes disputes and strategic workplace advice for senior executives and employers on complex workplace disputes, including those involving partnerships and LLPs.
Samantha Prosser https://www.linkedin.com/in/samanthacprosser/ Partner at BDBF, Samantha has extensive litigation experience in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. She specialises in whistleblowing and sex and disability discrimination claims, with particular expertise advising Consultants in the NHS and private practice.
Gareth Brahams is the managing partner at BDBF and a recognised leader in the field of employment law.
He has nearly 30 years of experience in employment law advising senior executives and other employees in high value/high stakes cases, large and small employers, partners and members of LLPs.
We’d love to hear from you, particularly with feedback on the Podcast and requests for topics to cover in future episodes. Drop us a line podcast@bdbf.co.uk
Specialist employment lawyer advising senior executives, partners, and employers, with experience in high-profile employee exits and significant disputes involving whistleblowing, breach of contract, and workplace discrimination.
