Richard Wayman

Richard has a busy employment practice, representing both Claimants and Respondents in the Employment Tribunals and beyond, acting for individuals, SMEs and large employers, including the automotive and airline sectors, universities, police forces and other public bodies. He also accepts instructions in appropriate cases via Direct Public Access.

He is regularly instructed to appear in Preliminary Hearings dealing with issues such as time limits, employment status and territorial jurisdiction, disclosure issues, strike out and deposit orders, as well as Final Hearings on both liability and remedy, and Judicial Mediations.

Richard has extensive experience of cases involving unfair and constructive unfair dismissal; redundancy; discrimination, harassment and victimisation; whistle-blowing; restrictive covenants, and TUPE. He has particular expertise in complex discrimination claims, often involving multiple protected characteristics, including disability, age, race, religion, pregnancy and maternity, and gender reassignment.

Richard thrives on document-heavy multi-day Final Hearings in which his attention to detail and focused cross-examination come to the fore. A tenacious advocate in Tribunal, outside court he is noted for his approachable manner and ability to put clients at their ease, particularly those with mental health or neurodiversity issues. He gives clear, practical, commercial advice, whether dealing with individual litigants or senior management.

When not in Tribunal, Richard assists by drafting key documents on behalf of clients, including Grounds of Claim and Response, Schedules of Loss and Lists of Issues; advising on the merits of a case, points of law and settlement negotiations, and of course strategy and tactics at all stages of a case. Clients often find that early advice from Richard enables them to avoid costly and drawn out litigation.

Selected Cases

Mr G Siapolya v North Kent College [2024] ET

Richard recently represented the Respondent College in this hearing in which the claim that the dismissal of the Claimant during his probationary period was direct race discrimination was dismissed.

Mrs C Shorney-Jones v Multiple Sclerosis Society [2024] ET

Richard recently acted for the Claimant in this five day hearing, succeeding in establishing on the facts of the case that the Respondent’s failure to undertake a pregnancy-specific risk assessment amounted to pregnancy discrimination and victimisation.

Mr M Rahman v Your Mortgage People [2024] ET

Richard appeared for the Respondent in this claim involving unfair dismissal, race discrimination and public interest disclosure (whistle-blowing) detriment. All of the claims were dismissed.

Mr B Belfedal v World of Books Ltd [2023] ET

Richard represented the Respondent in a claim in which a male employee was alleging sex discrimination and harassment in the allocation of manual tasks in a warehouse, succeeding on all points, having earlier secured a deposit order in respect of the sex discrimination claim.

Mr W Gilmour v Syspal Limited [2023] ET

Richard appeared for the Respondent in this five day case, in which the age discrimination and whistle-blowing detriment claims were dismissed, while the unfair dismissal claim was subject to a 33% Polkey reduction.

Ms M Spychaj v Dr K Lomax [2022] ET

Richard acted for the individual Respondent in this case, involving a claim of unfair dismissal for whistle-blowing and breach of contract. The Final Hearing ultimately proceeded in the absence of the Claimant, who then sought to appeal the dismissal of further claims at an earlier Preliminary Hearing, which Richard successfully resisted before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Mrs L Cooper &Ors v Vanners Silk (1740 Limited) &Ors [2022] ET

Richard acted for a number of former employees of the various Respondents in a complex multi-day Final Hearing involving a disputed TUPE transfer and multiple successful claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages.

Mr A J Foster v Arkaya Energy Ltd & Mr K Sharma [2021] ET

Richard appeared on a Direct Public Access basis for the Respondents in this case, successfully resisting all contested claims against both Respondents, including ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and whistle-blowing detriment.

Ms McCarthy v Milford Del Support Agency Ltd [2021] ET

Richard acted for the Claimant in this case in which her claims for constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were upheld, including a 15% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice.

Mr R Penney v Renault Retail Group Ltd [2021] ET

In this case, Richard successfully established that the Claimant was not disabled on account of his mental health for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, was not constructively or wrongfully dismissed, and had not been subjected to unlawful deductions from wages. Accordingly all claims were dismissed.

A v JC Group [2019] ET

Richard appeared for the Respondent at a six day Final Hearing involving numerous allegations of religious discrimination, harassment and victimisation, at the conclusion of which all but two of the claims were dismissed. Richard appeared at the subsequent reconsideration hearing, and represented the company at the successful Judicial Mediation.

N v C Limited [2018] ET

Richard acted pro bono for the Claimant in a four day Final Hearing dealing with allegations of gender reassignment discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal, which centred on the issue of precisely when the right of a transgender person to use the toilets of their acquired gender arises. Before the tribunal could hand down its judgment on the legal issues, however, the matter was concluded by a substantial settlement from the Respondent, including the claimant’s full legal costs.