Sarah Hornblower

Sarah acts for both Claimant and Respondent clients in all areas of employment law including (but not limited to):

• Unfair/wrongful dismissal
• Whistle blowing
• All types of discrimination cases under the Equality Act 2010 and the previous legislation (if applicable).

Sarah is available to advise in conference or in writing, to draft documents and to provide representation at hearings in the Employment Tribunal, civil jurisdiction and at appellate level.

Having specialised in this area of law since completion of her pupillage, Sarah’s achievement in this field was marked by her appointment as Junior Counsel to the Crown on the Regional Panel for Employment Law in October 2010 and subsequently reappointed to the A panel until March 2023. She is listed in the Legal 500.

Sarah is well known on the Western Circuit (by Judges and instructing solicitors) as being skilled, with a pragmatic and fair approach.

Sarah is proactively involved in the ELIPS scheme and regularly volunteers for which Sarah has been awarded the Platinum Volunteer Award and appears in the Pro Bono Recognition List 2024

Featured Employment & Discrimination cases

Stubbs v Consensio EAT 2023

Claimant was bringing some 16 cases against various and multiple former employers. Historically a number of the claims had been struck out at first instance for his conduct which was found to be ‘scandalous, unreasonable, and vexatious’, including in this case his abuse when he attended the Tribunal requiring the staff to call the police.

The appeal was to determine whether striking out without a hearing had been permissible in the circumstances and whether the Judge had considered fully the Claimant’s refusal to engage in the tribunal process meaning that a fair trial was not possible due to his conduct following Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] EWCA Civ 684 and Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140. Acting for the Respondent the appeal by the Claimant was dismissed.

Tapping v MOD 2020 - 2024

Acting for the Respondent defending long and protracted overlapping claims being brought by the Claimant for whistleblowing, age and disability discrimination, and victimisation. This case was nationally reported.

All but a small number of allegations were dismissed and Claimant’s attempts to appeal were unsuccessful.

Santander v Adams 2018

She appeared on behalf of the Respondent at first instance and again in the appeal. She was successful in defending the claims at first instance and in the appeal being refused and the cross-appeal succeeding in relation to the reasonable adjustments duty and whether discounting sickness absence for the purpose of calculating sick pay would have alleviated the substantial disadvantage. Following Nottingham County Council v Meikle IRLR 203, it was established that the Respondent was not required to demonstrate that the adjustment would have assisted the return to work. Further, on the question of whether the Tribunal had misdirected itself in light of O’Brien v Bolton St. Catherine’s Academy EWCA Civ 145, concerning the interplay between s15 and unfair dismissal claims, she was also successful.

Edwards v SSJ UKEAT/0123/14/DM

A claim for UDW by multiple Claimants, all prison officers who had not attended work at Dartmoor Prison due to snowfall, but had sought payment of their wages because of their attendance at the rendezvous point before refusing to take prison vehicles to the prison.

The question was whether there were circumstances of danger which the Claimants reasonably believed were serious and imminent – s44(1)(d) and (e) ERA 1996.

She won at first instance; the ET held that the Claimants did not hold the requisite reasonable belief. The Claimants appealed.

On appeal, the question was whether the Judge had dealt with the factual points pertaining to each Claimant sufficiently so that the Judgment was Meek compliant.

The appeal was partially allowed in that sufficient reasons were not given, so the matter was remitted. However, she was successful in defeating the appeal on grounds that contractually the wages would have been due simply for attendance at the rendezvous point, irrespective of the health and safety issue preventing attendance at the Prison itself to work.

BMI Healthcare v Spaulding and Diplacito UKEAT/0551/06/CEA

Early in her career, she made her first appearance in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to argue against remittance on Meek grounds. The Employment Tribunal’s (ET) judgment had failed to comply with the necessary requirements, as it did not set out the findings of fact or the law at all. Unsurprisingly, the case was remitted