Having A NatteRR Robinson Ralph

We look at the case of Pilawa v Spericle Ltd T/a Properties on The Market, in which an employee who was rendered bedbound by endometriosis, was awarded more than £31k for unfair dismissal.
We also talk about David's camping trip, which included playing a Swedish game called 'kubb' and the time I shouted at some youths. 

In the latest episode of  the non-award winning 'Having a NatteRR', Simon and David examine the case of Taneja v Phoenix Whirlpools Limited, which included an allegation that the Claimant being called the incorrect name on four occasions was an act of harassment and/or direct race discrimination.
They also discuss whose weekend plans are best, with camping vs sleeping in a house, along with a teaser for the next episode: a fascinating explanation of initialism vs acronym.
 

In this episode, we discuss the case of Legge v the Environment Agency, in which the Claimant who had argued he had been sacked for not being a feminist, was ordered to pay £20k costs for bringing a vexatious claim. 
 
We also discuss Dave's hurty knee, my hurty shoulder and fights between people over sitting and standing at events. 

In this episode, David and I discuss the case of  Wright Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham​, which included a claim of direct disability discrimination. 
We also talk about our upcoming trip to Chorley and how I was inconvenienced by the amount of 'looking' I had to do at a recent visit to Harry Potter Studios. 

In this episode, Simon and David discuss the case of McLaren V Hiflow Property Services, a pregnancy discrimination case in which the Claimant won and received a £22k reward.
They look at what respondent did wrong in terms of case preparation, talk through the judgment and look at the lessons all employers can learn from this.
It also includes the ever-popular ‘banter bit’ in which Dave discusses the unhygienic state of his son’s flat in Edinburgh, and Simon reveals how to steal chocolate from your children.

In this week’s episode of Having a NatteRR, David and Simon discuss the case of In Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd, in which the Claimant won his claim of unfair dismissal after being sacked for played two pranks, involving placing, firstly, a tarantula’s shed exoskeleton, and, subsequently, a snakeskin in a colleague’s pigeonhole.
The  Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £22,571.22, representing his loss of earnings until 6 July 2023, plus £704.99 per week from 7 July 2023 until reinstatement.
The boys discuss where the Respondent went wrong.
In addition, the “banter section” hits a new low.