Rachael Levene

PROFILE

Rachael is a talented barrister of over fifteen years call. She has a growing practice and is very popular with her clients. She is an expert at putting witnesses at ease and develops their confidence quickly.

She prides herself on flawless preparation and is able to get through large amounts of information with relative ease. She is then able to find a practical solution for what may, at first glance appear to be a highly complex matter. 

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

Rachael Levene accepts instructions in all areas of Employment Law. She also acts as a Mediator, having qualified as such in 2020.

In Employment Law, Rachael acts for both Claimants and Respondents. She provides advisory and drafting services on all areas of Employment Law. Rachael provides a professional and down-to-earth service.

She is a problem solver who combines intellectual rigour with a warm and friendly manner. This appealing combination has led to her receiving a wide variety of instructions in the following areas:

• Unfair Dismissal
• Discrimination, in all its forms
• Employment Status
• The Contract of Employment
• Whistleblowing
• Working Time
• Industrial Relations
• TUPE

In her Mediation work, Rachael has experience of mediating on complex and emotional matters. Rachael takes pride in her ability to quickly develop trust with those she is mediating between. In finding common ground between parties, Rachael is skilled in navigating a path to settlement, sometimes with creative solutions.

RECENT NOTABLE CASES

A McDermott v 1) Sellafield Ltd 2) Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 3) H Roberts: [2023] EAT 60

Rachael acted for the Second Respondent over a 2 day EAT hearing against 2 KCs. The appeal followed a 3-week ET hearing in 2021 and the tribunal having awarded costs in favour of both Respondents. The claims against the Second Respondent relied the doctrine of agency. Rachael successfully defended the appeal on liability.

Dakin v Brennan (2023)

Rachael represented the Respondent, an individual against whom multiple claims of pregnancy and sex discrimination had been brought. The claims arose following a commercial dispute between the parties. There had been press attention in the case prior the final hearing. All claims were successfully resisted, and there was similar press attention in the outcome.

Sivyer v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (2023)

Rachael successfully defended an array of complaints of whistleblowing detriment following the Claimant’s employment in a mass vaccination centre in a multi-day ET hearing. The case carefully considered the issue of a protected disclosure and causation.

Postis v Leeds Beckett University (2022)

Rachael represented the university in a multi-day hearing to defend claims of constructive unfair dismissal and victimisation brought by an academic of French origin. The evidence was voluminous and went back many years. Following careful cross-examination, the Claimant withdrew his claims. Rachael successfully negotiated that the withdrawal was accompanied by a payment of costs.

A McDermott v 1) Sellafield Ltd 2) Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 3) H Roberts (2021)

Rachael represented the Second Respondent. The liability hearing took place across 3 weeks. The Claimant brought claims of whistleblowing detriment and victimisation. To succeed against the Second Respondent, the Claimant had to show that there was a relationship of principal and agency between the First and Second Respondents or that the Second Respondent was otherwise responsible for actions of the First Respondent. Rachael successfully defended all claims. The Respondents subsequently pursued costs.

Mr M Kassem v North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust (2020): 2502292/2019

In September 2020 Rachael acted for the Respondent an ET hearing spanning 3 weeks. The case involved multiple allegations of whistleblowing detriment, direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation spanning a long period. There were over 3500 pages of documents and many witnesses including high profile hospital leaders and clinicians. Given the complexity of case, the tribunal required 7 days to deliberate.