Craig Ludlow > Chambers of David Berkley KC > London, England > Barrister Profile

Craig is the Head of 3PB’s Employment and Discrimination Law Team.

He practises exclusively in this area of law and is consistently ranked as a Leading Junior barrister in both the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners directories, being variously described as: “A forceful and knowledgeable advocate, who is always well prepared and quick to put pressure on the other side…a good communicator and excellent with clients”, “Very knowledgeable”, “meticulous and thorough”, having “excellent attention to detail”, “a huge range of experience”, “a highly skilled advocate who places client care at the forefront of his work”, “Always thorough and well prepared, with a keen eye for detail”, “His advocacy is impressive, deftly executed and instils confidence in the client and, importantly, the Judge”, “organised and efficient”, “commercially minded”, and “great at building up strong client relationships and getting to know their business – perfect for repeat instructions”.

He is also an elected Board Member of Chambers’ national Policy Committee, an editorial Board Member of the Employment Lawyers Association (UK) Briefing magazine, a Member of the Institute of Directors, and a Member of the Non-Executive Directors’ Association.

Having developed a successful nationwide practice spanning over 20 years, he is highly experienced and acts predominantly for companies across the full range of employment-related claims brought in the Employment Tribunals, County Courts, and the High Court.

Reflective of his level of skill and experience in dealing with factually and legally complex disputes, Craig is regularly instructed to conduct multi-day whistleblowing and discrimination cases.  He also has a particular academic and professional interest in employment status cases and cases involving trade unions (see below under ‘Articles’).

During his time in practice, Craig has acted for and against:  myriad local authorities, technology companies; engineering companies; financial services companies; national newspapers; charities; schools; colleges; care homes; GP and dental practices; NHS Trusts; recruitment consultancies, insurance companies, supermarkets, and adult education providers.  Consequently, he is very familiar with dealing with the Care Quality Commission, safeguarding issues, the Financial Conduct Authority, and all of the relevant professional, regulatory, and Ombudsman issues which arise from dealing with this type of litigation.

Over the last 15 years he has also developed a sub-specialism in transport work.  Through his dealings with this type of work, he is very familiar with the specific policies, procedures, and contracts of employment that are sometimes unique to the transport industry.  In particular, he is fully conversant with the commercial aspects of how London-based transport companies interact with and secure contracts with Transport for London (‘TfL’) and the standards which the companies must adhere to in order to retain such contracts.  This can sometimes raise issues which require sensitive and careful handling.  He has also been involved in litigation concerning Network Rail and international airlines.

He is frequently instructed by employers to provide strategic and policy advice, as well as advising them during the course of sometimes very factually and legally complex / sensitive grievance and disciplinary investigations and processes.

In recent years he has also developed a specialty in advising both employers and employees on the enforceability of and / or breaches of post-employment restrictive covenants, applying for and defending applications for injunctive relief in the High Court, and on the various common law and equitable remedies which might be available to a successful party following such applications and subsequent claims.

He regularly provides case law updates, lectures, seminars, mock tribunals and bespoke training to solicitors, employer clients (including Boards of Directors), and Human Resources professionals.  Most recently, such training has included mental health issues arising in the context of disability discrimination claims, and also a webinar explaining the detail of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and its wider implications for employers and employees in the workplace.  He is also an approved lecturer with ACAS and has given numerous lectures with employees of ACAS around the country to businesses and HR professionals on subjects ranging from misconduct dismissals, Tribunal procedure, TUPE, and most recently on flexible working applications in the context of hybrid working.

Craig has been appointed to the panel of barristers of the Employment Lawyers Appeals Advice Scheme (‘ELAAS’).  ELAAS is a service offering pro bono employment law advice to appellants and respondents where there is a preliminary hearing in the Employment Appeal Tribunal with no previous legal representation on record.

A brief overview of his trial experience in the recent past is set out below:

Skarbek-Cieleck v Holly Rise Consultants Ltd t/a Bluebird Care (Case No: 2303648/2017) – Successfully representing the respondent homecare provider in claims made against it for direct race discrimination and breach of the working time regulations.

Mustafa v Metroline West Ltd (Case No: 3328088/2017) – Successfully representing the respondent bus company in claims made against it for detrimental treatment for trade union activity and unfair dismissal.

Thomas v Youth Hostel of England & Wales Ltd (Case No: 1403380/2018) – Successfully representing the respondent at a preliminary hearing dealing with the issue of employment status, at which it was held that the Claimant was self-employed.

Taylor v EDF Energy Ltd (Case No: 1403518/2018) – Successfully representing the respondent energy company at a preliminary hearing on its application to strike out the claimant’s claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Brown & Others v (1) London General Transport Services Ltd (2) Blue Triangle Buses Ltd (3) East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd (Case No: 3310904/2014) – Successfully representing one of three respondent bus companies in claims brought by 55 bus drivers for unauthorised deductions from wages arising out of historic claims for meal allowances following multiple TUPE transfers.  The trial lasted for 6 days and all claims were dismissed.

Anonymous v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd (Case No: 3202012/2015) – Successfully representing the Respondent bus company, its Operations Director, and one of its Acting Supervisors in an 8 day trial involving complex claims of detriment because of making various protected public interest disclosures and claims for direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and unfair dismissal.

Spinelli v Menzies Aviation (UK) Ltd (Case No: 3200653/2016) – Successfully representing the Claimant in a claim for unfair dismissal against an aviation logistics company involving a breach of airport security. Following the successful conclusion of the case, the Claimant and her husband said of Mr Ludlow:  “From the first conversation over the phone I found Mr Craig Ludlow to be very smart, knowledgeable and honest on the merit of the case. He worked very hard preparing for the case in a short period which happens to be a complicated and sensitive case. Craig was very meticulous in his work; his attention to details was brilliant which helped my case. Craig was outstanding in cross-examining the respondent’s witnesses. He was very persuasive in putting the important points across.  My husband and I were very impressed by Craig’s professionalism that we decided after the hearing to instruct Craig on a direct access basis. Craig was a very smart negotiator prior to the remedies hearing. He was in constant contact with me despite his busy schedule.  Craig always responded promptly to my emails and phone calls even during the weekend. His advice was very precious.  Craig’s contribution, his professionalism and dedication makes the difference between a Barrister and an outstanding Barrister. We are so grateful to you and that would have been the case regardless of the outcome.  I would highly recommend you to anybody looking for your services.”

Luke v Venson Automotive Solutions Ltd (Case No: 2301755/2016) – Successfully representing a Respondent fleet management company in a 4 day trial involving claims of detriment made by a male claimant for taking leave for family reasons and constructive unfair dismissal.

Shaikh v Tower Transit Operations Ltd (Case No: 2208392/2016) – Acting for the Respondent bus company at a preliminary hearing and securing deposit orders totalling £7,000 in respect of claims for: direct discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, and disability; discrimination arising from disability; indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability; failing to make reasonable adjustments on the grounds of disability; harassment on the grounds of all of the above protected characteristics; and victimisation.

Coffey v B M Pearson Ltd (Case No: 1400571/2016) – 10 day trial representing the Defendant dental practice in numerous historical whistleblowing claims and a claim for constructive unfair dismissal raising issues involving NHS England and the Care Quality Commission.

Omar v Tower Transit Operations Ltd (Case No: 3201534/2014) – Successfully representing a Respondent bus company in a 5 day trial involving claims for direct race discrimination, religious discrimination, and unfair dismissal.  The judgment in the case records variously that: “We agree with Mr Ludlow for the Respondent that where the Claimant disputes the contents of the notes of meetings he does so selectively when it suits him or his case to do so…”; “We think there is some force in the suggestion put to the Claimant by Mr Ludlow that he was “making it up as he went along”…”; “Mr Ludlow correctly points out that the Claimant made no reference in this considered occurrence report (which the Claimant headed “Horrific Occurrence”) of (i) spitting; (ii) racial abuse; (iii) discrimination on grounds of race or religion; (iv) being accused of praying by Mr Asew or (v) any allegation that his Somali national origins or Muslim religion were relevant”; and “We think Mr Ludlow’s observations on behalf of the Respondent as to the Claimant’s credibility are well made”.  Mr Ludlow recently secured a costs order for £12,616 against the Claimant, which was the full amount of the Respondent’s legal fees.

Taylor v (1) Endeavour Insurance Services (2) CGNMB LLP – Successfully representing the Claimant in a 3 day preliminary hearing involving TUPE issues and claims for direct sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Styles v London United Busways Ltd – Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 7 day trial involving numerous and wide ranging historical complaints of direct sex discrimination and harassment, as well as claims for unfair dismissal claim, race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect discrimination on grounds of disability, and discrimination arising from disability.

Atanasiu v Personnel Selection Associates Ltd – Appearing for the Respondent recruitment agency and succeeding in an application to strike out a claim against them for alleged direct sex discrimination and sexual harassment by an employee of their client.

Chasha v Swarthmore Housing Society Ltd – 9 day trial acting for the Respondent care home involving claims of direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Patel v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd – 4 day trial acting for a Respondent bus company involving claims for direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Anwar v Sir George Monoux College – Successfully representing the Respondent college in an 8 day trial involving claims of direct race discrimination, indirect race discrimination, and unfair dismissal.

Llewellyn-Jones v Cyient Europe Ltd – Successfully represented the Respondent in a 3 day trial involving a claim for constructive unfair dismissal arising out of a mobility clause in the Claimant’s contract of employment.

Denton v Renewable Energy Systems Ltd – Successfully representing the Respondent in a 3 day trial involving a claim for unfair dismissal arising out of a redundancy process.

Field v Bournemouth Transport Ltd – Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 2-day trial involving claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and disability discrimination.

Osei-Agyeman v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd – Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 3 day trial involving claims for direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal, in which the unsuccessful Claimant was ordered to pay £7,500 towards the Respondent’s costs on the basis that the complaints were misconceived and it was unreasonable for him to have continued to pursue his claims.

Miah v Docklands Buses Ltd – Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 2-day trial involving claims of unfair dismissal, trade union discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, and breaches of the Working Time Regulations in respect of holidays.

Hamdoun v London General Transport Services Ltd – Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 5 day trial involving claims for direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Looking ahead to 2019, Craig has already been instructed to conduct numerous multi-day trials, including:

• Acting for a storage company in a 5 day race discrimination and unfair dismissal case.
• Acting for a multi-national mobile telephone provider in a 5 day disability discrimination and unfair dismissal case.
• Acting for a social media consultancy in a 5 day pregnancy and maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, and unfair dismissal case.
• Acting for a bus company in a 6 day multiple and historic whistleblowing and unfair dismissal case.
• Acting for a Trust in a 7 day trial involving whistleblowing detriment allegations and unfair dismissal, in a case in which Craig has already successfully had multiple detriment allegations and a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed on jurisdictional grounds at a preliminary hearing (Case No: 2602066/17).
• Acting for the National Register of Public Service Interpreters in a 5 day trial involving claims of whistleblowing detriment and dismissal, health and safety whistleblowing and detriment, age discrimination, disability discrimination, harassment, and unfair dismissal.
• Acting for a warehousing, distribution, transport, and logistics company in a 5 day trial involving claims of victimisation and unfair dismissal.