We use cookies to offer you a better experience and analyse site traffic.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

Rad Kohanzad

Call 2007
Telephone 020 7831 0222
Email radk@42br.com

Profile Privacy Notice vCard


Rad Kohanzad - 42 Bedford Row

Introduction

Specialising in employment, professional disciplinary, clinical negligence, contract, and coronial law, Rad appears before judges across the judicial spectrum, from lay magistrates to Lord Justices of Appeal. This broad experience demands versatility as an advocate, adapting to the demands of his tribunal, and is reflected by his wide client base which includes individuals, trade unions, police forces, national and multinational companies, charities, and NHS Trusts.

Rad is well known in the employment law sphere, acting for employees and employers. He tends to defend healthcare professionals and prosecute police officers at disciplinary hearings and has acted for both Trusts, doctors and families at inquests.

Before pupillage, Rad worked as a research assistant to Professor Alan Dershowitz at Harvard University and ran a niche employment law litigation practice.

Employment Law

Rad is an employment law specialist. He is regularly instructed across a wide range of cases covering the employment and discrimination law spectrum, including unfair dismissal, redundancy, discrimination, maternity/pregnancy rights, flexible working, whistleblowing, breach of contract, unlawful deductions of wages, and equal pay. He has a particular interest in TUPE and industrial action claims.

Rad has a wide client base which includes individuals, trade unions, national and multinational companies, charities, police forces and NHS Trusts. He regularly appears at in the Employment Tribunal, County Court, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal and has appeared unled in the EAT and Court of Appeal on numerous occasions.

  • All Answers v W [2021] IRLR 612
  • Polyclear v Wezowicz UKEAT/0183/20
  • Aramark (UK) Ltd v Fernandes: [2020] IRLR 861
  • X v Y: [2020] IRLR 762
  • Lasila v APCOA Parking UKEAT/0012/20
  • E & O Laboratories v Miller 2020 SLT 24
  • Smith v Intelling UKEAT/0307/19
  • Roseberry Care Centres v Jackson UKEAT/0279/19
  • Ikejiaku v British Institute of Technology: UKEAT/0243/19
  • Cox Motor Group v Hodgson UKEAT/0168/19
  • Parkview Care Ltd v Fenn UKEAT/0112/19
  • Retirement Security Services v Wilson UKEAT/0019/19
  • Awan v ICTS UK Ltd [2019] IRLR 212
  • Harrison v Aryma Ltd UKEAT/0085/19
  • Parnaby v Leicester City Council UKEAT/0025/19
  • Upton-Hansen Architects v Gyftaki UKEAT/0278/18
  • Cyril Nicol v Blackfriars Settlement [2018] EWCA Civ 2285
  • Caretower Limited v Jonathan Posner, Epaton Limited, NG Security (UK) Limited [2018] EWHC 2455 (QB)
  • Kouchalieva v London Borough of Tower Hamlets UKEAT/0188/18
  • Mr A Hawkes v Ausin Group (UK) Ltd UKEAT/0070/18
  • East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust v Mrs P Levy UKEAT/0232/17
  • Mr R Simpson v Secretary of State for Justice UKEAT/0274/17
  • Amey Services Ltd v Mr J Bate & Others UKEAT/0082/17
  • Dr C Fanutti v The University of East Anglia UKEAT/0182/17
  • Crown Prosecution Service v Fraser, [2014] EqLR 535
  • Zaki v Marston's PLC, [2014] All ER (D) 72
  • Gahir v Blackbay Ventures Ltd T/A Chemistree, [2014] IRLR 416
  • Boon v Chief Constable of Leicestershire [2014] EqLR 347
  • Gillingham Football Club v McCammon, [2014] EqLR 4
  • Cetinsoy and others v London United Busways Ltd UKEAT/0042/14
  • Secretary of State for Works & Pensions v Higgins, [2014] ICR 341
  • Healey v Wincanton UKEAT/0400/13
  • Cumbria County Council v Bates, [2013] All ER (D) 165
  • Redbridge London Borough Council v Dhinsa, [2013] ICR D33
  • Cheeld v Alliott, [2013] EWCA Civ 508
  • McCammon v Gillingham Football Club, [2012] EqLR 899
  • Roberts v Whitecross School, [2012] All ER (D) 233
  • John Guest Engineering v Vaio [2012] EWCA Civ 504
  • Gillingham Football Club v McCammon, [2012] All ER (D) 218
  • Bournemouth Borough Council v Leadbeater, [2011] ICR D15
  • Mirikwe v Wilson & Co Solicitors UKEAT/0025/11
  • Stuart Peters v Bell, [2009] IRLR 941
  • EPI Coaches Ltd v Lafferty, [2009] All ER (D) 81
  • Shirmardi v Capital Limo Ltd, UKEAT/0225/08
  • Power v Regent Security Services, [2007] IRLR 226

Inquests

Rad understands that the jurisdiction, by its very nature, can be very stressful. He is exceptional at making those involved feel at ease with the process and the prospect of giving evidence. Rad provides the right advice for the right situation and his judgment is highly respected by instructing solicitors.

Rad is also highly regarded for his advocacy in the coronial jurisdiction. Again, his judgment in this regard is crucial. He understands when an issue needs to be stressed or explored and when nothing should be said at all.

Rad is particularly alert to the potential regulatory consequences for many witnesses appearing at inquests given his experience of representing health professionals before their regulators. He is happy to advise in conference at any stage and on any aspect arising within this jurisdiction.

Cases and work of note

  • Inquest touching the death of MS – a three-day inquest representing an NHS Trust where concerns arose over whether the Trust should have released the deceased from their care following a suicide attempt in circumstances where she later committed suicide.
  • Inquest touching the death of GW – a 10-day jury inquest representing an NHS Trust who had released the deceased to a private hospital where she later committed suicide.
  • Inquest touching the death of JO – representing the family in an inquest where a large piece of bone had been found to have been blocking the deceased’s airway that was not picked up in various x-rays.
  • Inquest touching the death of QW – representing a police force at a contentious pre-inquest review where numerous matters were in issue, including the scope of the inquest and whether expert evidence was required.
  • Inquest touching the death of TD – representing a Trust at a pre-inquest review concerning the scope of the inquest.
  • Inquest touching the death of AT – representing a Trust where the deceased had fallen twice whilst in its custody.
  • Inquest touching the death of SA – representing a local authority where a young child residing in council accommodation fell out of a window where the family had raised concerns over the condition of the window prior to the death.
  • Inquest touching the death of KW – representing an ambulance service where it was thought that the deceased may have hit his head whilst in the care of the service.

Articles

  • Your time is up? – Police Professional, 12 March 2014
  • Beecroft in Thatcher’s clothing – New Law Journal, 16 November 2012, Vol 162, Issue 7538
  • Best practice redundancy guide, HR Zone 16 February 2012, cited with approval by ACAS
  • The Burden of Proof in Whistleblowing: Fecitt v Manchester – Industrial Law Journal, 2011 40: 214-221
  • Whistle stop, more power to whistleblowers? – Solicitors Journal, 8 February 2011, 155/5
  • End of the no costs rule? – New Law Journal, 8 October 2010, Vol 160, Issue 7436
  • Balance of Payments – New Law Journal, 11 December 2009, Vol 159, Issue 7397
  • Regular contributor to Daniel Barnett’s employment law update

Areas of Expertise


Qualifications

  • King’s College, London, BSc
  • King’s College, London, LLM
  • London Metropolitan University, CPE (with Distinction)

Memberships

  • Bar Pro Bono unit
  • Industrial Law Society
  • Employment Lawyers Association
  • Employment Law Bar Association
  • Free Representation Unit
  • Discrimination Lawyers Association

Appointments

  • Football Association Chairman of Anti-Discrimination Misconduct Hearings 2014

Related News

McNeil v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 112

McNeil v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 112

McNeil v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 112 answers the question of whether a tribunal should approach “particular disadvantage” in equal pay and indirect discrimination cases by reference to averages or differential distribution? Differential what?! Rad Kohanzad provides a summary on McNeil v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 112

Published: 4th Jul 2019

Developed by CodeShore Ltd