The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Chambers of James Goudie QC and Daniel Stilitz QC

Living Wage
11 KING'S BENCH WALK, TEMPLE, LONDON, EC4Y 7EQ, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 020 7632 8500
Fax:
Fax 020 7583 9123
DX:
368 LONDON CHANCERY LANE
Email:
Web:
www.11kbw.com
11KBW (Chambers of James Goudie QC and Daniel Stilitz QC), Andrew Blake, London, ENGLAND

Andrew Blake

Tel:
Work 020 7632 8500
Email:
11KBW (Chambers of James Goudie QC and Daniel Stilitz QC)

Position

Andrew’s practice covers the full range of employment advice and litigation, with a particular focus on complex discrimination and whistle-blowing claims in the Employment Tribunals. He acts for a wide range of employers and for claimants. He has been instructed in a number of multiple equal pay claims in the public sector over the last decade, and is now seeing an increasing number of equal pay claims in the private sector. Recent appellate cases include: Cockram v Air Products [2014] ICR 1065 on affirmation of contract in constructive dismissal claims; Dynamic Extractions v Keay in relation to stays on the enforcement of Employment Tribunal judgments; Birdi v Dartford Visionplus Ltd which considered when a Tribunal should adjourn a hearing due to the ill-health of a party; Prest v Mouchel [2011] ICR 1345, on selection of comparators in equal pay cases; Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Trust v Armstrong (No 2) [2010] ICR 674, an equal pay case which explored a number of aspects of the genuine material factor defence including, in particular, the correct approach to allegations that market forces are tainted by gender discrimination; and Blackburn v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2009] IRLR 135, in which the Court of Appeal considered objective justification as part of the Equal Pay Act 1970

Career

Qualified 2000; Lincoln’s Inn.

Member

ELBA; ALBA.

Education

Cambridge University (1997 BA Law); University of California, Berkeley (1998 LLM).

Back to index

Legal Developments by:
11KBW (Chambers of James Goudie QC and Daniel Stilitz QC)

  • Possession Proceedings 28 August 2012

    The lower courts continue to clarify the position following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; [2011] 2 AC 104 and Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8; [2011] 2 AC 18 on the application of Article 8 ECHR to defend possession proceedings.
    - 11KBW

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to