Simon v Manorview Hotels Limited (Glasgow)
Tarlun Ahari successfully represented the Claimant in a disability status hearing. The judge found that the Claimant was disabled by reason of the physical...
Senior Clerk – Civil, Commercial & Employment Clerk
Junior Civil Clerk
Assistant Senior Clerk
Civil Clerk
Civil Clerk
Tarlun is a civil practitioner, and as such welcomes instructions for personal injury and employment law matters. Tarlun prides herself on her client care and building strong relationships with both her professional and lay clients.
Tarlun acts in matters in the Employment Tribunal and in the civil courts. She has been instructed to draft opinions and pleadings in relation to those areas and is happy to assist with papers requiring a fast turnaround.
Tarlun is accredited to receive instructions directly from members of the public through the Public Access Scheme.
Click here to view our Public Access pages and details of the process for instructing public access accredited barristers.
Tarlun regularly advises on a CFA basis the prospects of successfully bringing claims under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
Tarlun is well versed in drafting pleadings such as claims against hotels, claims on behalf of children against local authorities for injuries sustained in parks and other public areas etc. as well as slipping and tripping claims.
Tarlun has acted for employees and employers in respect of accidents at work, such as trips, slips and manual handling incidents.
Tarlun is pleased to attend Costs and Case Management Conferences in a variety of matters.
Tarlun welcomes instructions to draft Schedules of Loss for fast track matters, including claims of a more complicated nature relating to care and assistance and/or future loss of earnings.
Tarlun has and is happy to advise and draft pleadings on behalf of tenants for injuries sustained as a result of their landlord’s negligence.
Tarlun regularly attends Application Hearings for Claimants and Defendants on a range of issues, including applications to strike out a claim; application to set aside default judgment and applications for relief from sanction.
In the past six months, Tarlun has been instructed on behalf of Claimants who suffered gastroenteritis whilst on a package holiday. This includes the early stages of reviewing cases, advising on prospects, conducting conferences with the client and attending preliminary and substantive hearings.
Tarlun has regularly represented those whose flights were delayed by more than three hours.
Tarlun has advised on a broad range of personal injuries, from soft tissue, psychological, scarring and more complicated fractures.
Tarlun has represented both Claimants and Defendants at trial in claims arising from road traffic accidents, both in the small claims and fast track.
Prior to commencing pupillage, Tarlun worked for a specialist industrial disease firm. She has been able to draw upon this experience in claims for noise induced hearing loss. She regularly receives instructions to draft pleading and has recently conducted multiple-day hearings.
In addition, Tarlun has started to receive instructions relating occupational asthma and repetitive strain injury cases thus being exposed to a broader range of industrial disease work.
Tarlun gained insight into complex clinical negligence claims whilst working as a Legal Assistant to a silk for 18 months before commencing pupillage. She has begun developing a practice in this area of law.
Tarlun is building a busy practice and welcomes instructions in all areas of employment law.
Tarlun appears for both Claimants and Respondents in the Employment Tribunal in a wide range of hearings such as preliminary and interlocutory applications as well as multi-day final hearings. Tarlun also has experience representing both Claimant and Respondent in judicial mediations.
She regularly drafts advices regarding unfair dismissal, discrimination and whistleblowing as well as drafting grounds of complaints and grounds of resistance. She advises clients at all stages from initial negotiations through to the final hearing.
Tarlun has a particular interest in claims arising from the Equality Act 2010.
September 2024 – Tarlun represented a gentleman who had an enlarged prostate since 2007 and successfully claimed he had a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant was a driver, whose enlarged prostate meant that he suffered with urinary frequency. The Respondent accepted the Claimant had the condition but disputed that it had enough of an impact to amount to a disability.
Comment: this case demonstrates that the threshold for whether an impairment has a ‘substantial’ impact is quite low. The impact must be more than trivial. The judge in this case considered the cumulative effects of the condition and found that the Claimant was disabled. The judge also took into account the fluctuating effects of the condition, which he accepted were more prevalent when the Claimant was under stress. The coping mechanisms adopted by the Claimant were considered, such as carefully planning his journeys and avoiding certain situations. The social embarrassment to the Claimant if he had an accident was relevant and accepted to amount to more than a trivial impact. The nocturnal impact of the condition was also considered relevant: the Claimant would frequently wake in the night, thereby suffering disturbed sleep and resulted in fatigue and tiredness. The judge had no doubt that this impact memory, concentration and motor skills in a more than trivial way.
Simon v Manorview Hotels Limited (Glasgow) – August 2024
Tarlun successfully represented the Claimant in a disability status hearing. The judge found that the Claimant was disabled by reason of the physical impairments of fibromyalgia and/or perimenopause. Tarlun submitted that the Claimant received medication for both conditions and their deduced effects must be considered. The Respondent pointed to the alleged lack of medical evidence regarding the deduced effects of fibromyalgia and the little to no evidence of the effect on normal day to day activities. The judge noted that fibromyalgia caused the claimant body pain, fatigue and cognitive issues (“brain fog”). During a flare up, the Claimant had difficulty sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, concentrating on tasks and making decisions. These were all normal day to day activities. Perimenopause caused similar symptoms and additionally caused low mood/anxiety. The judge found that if medication or treatment for both conditions were to cease, it was likely the Claimant would experience the same symptoms and effect on activities that she experienced during a flare up.
Comment: In determining disability status, the Tribunal must take into account any aspect of the Guidance on the definition of Disability (2011) and the EHRC Code of Practice on Employment(2015) . This case reiterated that the cause of an impairment does not require to be established. Further, that when a person has more than one impairment, account should be taken of whether the impairments together have a substantial effect overall on the person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Whether or not someone has a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 will turn on the individual facts of the case. Whilst medical evidence is extremely helpful, contemporaneous medical records (particularly GP ones) often do not go into necessarily detail about the effects of impairments- which is crucial for the determination of disability status in a legal context. Much will turn on the Claimant’s own evidence; the cogency of which will improve if corroborated by the medical records. Solicitors should therefore take time to ensure the evidence of the Claimant, usually by way of an impact statement, addresses the relevant factors to support their claim of disability. The judgment is available here.
Given the cultural shift towards understanding the menopause / peri-menopause, and their effects, this case has attracted media attention. The case was covered in Law 360.
September 2024 – Tarlun represented a gentleman who had an enlarged prostate since 2007 and successfully claimed he had a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant was a driver, whose enlarged prostate meant that he suffered with urinary frequency. The Respondent accepted the Claimant had the condition but disputed that it had enough of an impact to amount to a disability.
Comment: This case demonstrates that the threshold for whether an impairment has a ‘substantial’ impact is quite low. The impact must be more than trivial. The judge in this case considered the cumulative effects of the condition and found that the Claimant was disabled. The judge also took into account the fluctuating effects of the condition, which he accepted were more prevalent when the Claimant was under stress. The coping mechanisms adopted by the Claimant were considered, such as carefully planning his journeys and avoiding certain situations. The social embarrassment to the Claimant if he had an accident was relevant and accepted to amount to more than a trivial impact. The nocturnal impact of the condition was also considered relevant: the Claimant would frequently wake in the night, thereby suffering disturbed sleep and resulted in fatigue and tiredness. The judge had no doubt that this impact memory, concentration and motor skills in a more than trivial way
Tarlun represented a Claimant in the Southampton Employment Tribunal in a claim for automatic unfair dismissal. The Claimant was successful and received a 25% uplift to his damages due to a failure of the Respondent to follow the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. The Claimant had raised concerns regarding inadequate measures put in place by his employer during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Claimant requested to work from home and was shortly thereafter dismissed. The Claimant was successful in proving that he had been dismissed upon proposing to leave the workplace that was unsafe.
Tarlun has successfully represented a Claimant in a claim for constructive dismissal based on breach of express and implied terms of the employment contract. The breach of the contract included frequently changing the terms of employment at short notice; behaving oppressively and the manner in which the Respondent handled the Claimant’s grievance. The Claimant was also subject to a number of harassing phone calls from her employer whilst at work. It was held that the employer’s conduct as a whole amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract and the Claimant’s resignation without notice amounted to constructive dismissal.
Tarlun successfully defended a claim of unfair dismissal. She represented a small independent charity who had dismissed their Manager due to the anticipated reduction in funding. The Manager brought a claim for unfair dismissal as he contested the Respondent’s assertions that his role had become redundant.
Tarlun has successfully negotiated settlement in a claim for unfair dismissal where the issue of employment status was contested.