Ian Wright

His employment work has a particular focus on unfair dismissal, discrimination claims, protected disclosures and procedural points for both claimants and respondents. Ian has experience in advising and representing employers and directors/senior employees regarding post-termination clauses, employment terms and duties, covenants and alleged breach of covenants. In 2017 he appeared in the Court of Appeal over the provision of an interpreter to a party who had good written but poor spoken English. He regularly advises on employment contracts and internal disputes between employer and employee.

Recent work/cases

• NM v The Cabinet Office and others- a multi day final hearing listed in March 2025 for a senior civil servant alleging disability discrimination and whistle blowing.
• Christopher Tilson v Financial Ombudsman Service- final hearing in 2024 alleging whistle blowing against the FOS (September 2024).
• Jonathan Harvey v TfL- final hearing in 2024 alleging whistle blowing about the ‘knowledge’ testing procedure for London Taxi Drivers.
• Holland v Fedex- final hearing listed in 2024 alleging breaches of contractual arrangements regarding HGV drivers- claims eventually withdrawn.
• Regnante v Essex Cares Ltd (1403429/2020)- resignation of administrator with vulnerable spouse following introduction of Covid RA/MS providing for office attendance for key workers.
• Kotecha v LB of Hillingdon (3312297/2020)- dismissal of long term absent worker with disability.
• ZMW v CPS (1303545/2019 & ors)- 12 day listed final hearing of four cases spanning several years of alleged disability discrimination of Crown Prosecutor.
• Chiappe v GKN v GKN Aerospace Ltd (1307816/19)- Multi day final hearing for Claimant awarded maximum compensatory and basic award for unfair dismissal.
• Lovelady v Fedex UK (2303227/18)- preliminary hearing for respondent when claim rejected due to errors on ET1 under Rules 10 & 12.
• Luckman v Fedex UK (1300047/20)-preliminary hearing for respondent when claim struck out for wrongly named respondent on EC certificate.
• White v Redlynch Engineering Ltd (1403075/20)- preliminary hearing for respondent on disability where impairment was menopausal symptoms and hearing loss.
• Chowdhury v Royal Free NHS Trust (2201627/21)- preliminary hearing for claimant resisting strike out application regarding claimant’s status as trainee GP in practice placement.
• Williams v Essex Cares Ltd (3201253/20)- final hearing for respondent resisting claims of race discrimination.

Ian has recently released podcasts discussing the current Employment Rights Bill in conjunction with a firm of solicitors. More will be released as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

Ian’s health and safety work is for both regulators and duty holders and he has a niche specialism on appeals under section 24 HSWA. Ian’s other regulatory work is in financial services, Care Quality Commission work and professional disciplinary proceedings.

Ian’s regulatory health and safety work has lead to him being instructed in both the Supreme Court (2017) and the Court of Appeal (2015) in cases which established the test for an employment tribunal hearing a section 24 HSWA appeal. He has been on Part A of the Regulatory Board’s Panel List of Counsel for more than 15 years.

He regularly cross-examines expert witnesses and his opponents are often QC’s.

Recent work/cases:

• Railway Operating Company v ORR- an appeal against an improvement notice concerning speed controls on a new fleet of trains (2024- ongoing)
• Manufacturing company v HSE- an appeal against an improvement notice concerning aluminum dust after manual fettling operations in foundry (2024- ongoing)
• Network Rail v ORR (an appeal against an improvement notice concerning emergency shut down procedures after fatality near Deal in Kent- 2024)
• Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Leftly (ORR)- an appeal against an improvement notice served following the collision between two trains outside the Fisherton Tunnel, Salisbury.
• SCD Group v Thompson (HSE) (ET 1801226/21)- an appeal against a prohibition notice served due to concerns about the release of silica dust during a pavement cutting operation.
• Cleshar Contract Services Ltd v Babb (ORR) (ET 3314542/2020) (November 2020)– an appeal against an improvement notice served following the death of a worker whilst cleaning the travellator at London Waterloo Station.
• In May 2019 he was instructed in a notice appeal against a prohibition notice served under the CDM Regulations because of an unsafe excavation. The tribunal’s judgment considered for the first time the meaning of ‘control’ of construction works by a Principal Contractor.
• In March 2019 he represented a national stakeholder at an Inquest following a fall from the Pontycysllte Aqueduct (a World Heritage Site). The Jury concluded the fatality was a ‘misadventure.’
• In March 2019 he represented a national stakeholder at an Inquest following a fall from the Pontycysllte Aqueduct (a World Heritage Site). The Jury concluded the fatality was a ‘misadventure.’
• Han v Shiffer (HSE) (ET 1810444/2018) (November 2019) an appeal against a prohibition notice served following the removal of external and side walls of a domestic property on the owner who was in control of the works.
• Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Wake (ORR); (July 2019) appeals against improvement notices concerning track worker protection arrangements.
• From 2017-2019 he has represented an Authorised Individual before the Financial Markets Tribunal in Dubai hearing a substantive regulatory challenge in a financial services matter for the first time. Ian also successfully challenged the refusal of a subject access request by a Data Controller in Dubai to the Commissioner of Data Protection (June 2018).
• HM Inspector of Health & Safety v Chevron North Sea Ltd [2018] UKSC 7; The Supreme Court established that an employment tribunal hearing an appeal under section 24 of the HSWA could take into consideration evidence obtained after the service of a prohibition notice if it went to an issue before the Inspector who served the notice. The Supreme Court resolved conflicting decisions between the Court of Session (Inner) Ian appeared as junior counsel for the appellant in the Supreme Court.
• XY v Dubai Financial Services Authority; A regulatory challenge following a Decision taken against an investment bank and two individuals in Dubai. Ian appeared at an interlocutory hearing before the Financial Markets Tribunal in Dubai and then assisted with case preparation as junior counsel before the substantive hearing.
• Commissioner of Data Protection & Anr v Dubai Financial Services Authority [Decision Nos. 3 & 4 of 2018]; Ian successfully challenged the refusal of a Data Controller in Dubai to grant a subject access request. The challenge was heard by the Commissioner of Data Protection and then by the Court of First Instance under case names Dubai Financial Services Authority v Commissioner of Data Protection & Anr CFI 085 2018 & CFI 051 2018.
• Inquest of Kristopher McDowell (at Ruthin, April 2019); Ian represented a national stakeholder following the death of a young man who fell from the Pontycysllte Aqueduct (a World Heritage Site). The Coroner and Jury heard expert evidence concerning the structural integrity and inspection procedures for the Aqueduct and HMC concluded that the Aqueduct was safe for normal use. The Jury returned a conclusion of misadventure.
• Engie Regeneration Ltd v Whitesmith (HSE) (Case No. 2501756/2018); a notice appeal which considered for the first time the scope of the Principal Contractors duties under the CDM Regulations 2015.
• NCTL v Bacon (0014547/Bacon) (May 2017) A multi-day hearing before the NCTL when a Head Teacher successfully resisted all contested allegations of professional misconduct. No barring order was therefore considered.
• Hague v Rotary Yorkshire Ltd [2015] EWHC 696; Ian represented the HSE in a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal which established that an appeal under section 24 HSWA was limited to the tribunal considering the evidence before an inspector before serving a prohibition notice and such evidence as should have been discovered following a reasonable investigation. The Court of Appeal approved the approach of the High Court in Chilcott v Thermal Transfer Ltd [2009] EWHC 2096 in which Ian also appeared. Now see above under HM Inspector v Chevron (Supreme Court).

In Business Immigration he has advised employers and businesses on entry routes for workers under the non-discriminatory PBS. He has presented seminars and recorded recent webinars for MBL, LexisNexis and PLC on Sponsor Licensing, Work Routes, Sports Immigration and the Right to Work. He has advised individual and business clients on PA7 (Business Visitors) and Health & Care Visas within the sector including ethical recruitment procedures.

“Ian Wright is all over the detail of the law and there is nothing he doesn’t know about enforcement notice appeals.”
Chambers and Partners, 2026

‘Ian brings a calm, analytical approach to litigation. He is a persuasive and thoughtful advocate.’
The Legal 500, 2026

“Ian is extremely knowledgeable about the procedure and the law; he is also a very good, tenacious cross-examiner.”
Chambers and Partners, 2025

‘Ian is very industrious and enormously bright.’
The Legal 500, 2025

‘He’s always well prepared, has a mastery of the papers and he’s a commanding presence in court.’ 
‘He’s a very good strategist.’
Chambers and Partners, 2024

‘Ian is the oracle on all things related to improvement and prohibition notice appeals. He is a force to be reckoned with, whether he is for the appellant or respondent.‘
The Legal 500, 2024

‘He’s an excellent cross-examiner; he quickly identifies the relevant issues and pursues them.’
Chambers and Partners, 2024

‘Ian is absolutely first class in enforcement proceedings.’
Chambers and Partners, 2023

‘A tenacious, knowledgeable and quick-thinking barrister. A tough but fair opponent.’
Chambers and Partners, 2021

‘He is a true leader in the field of health and safety enforcement notice appeals. Ian is also a tenacious and persuasive advocate. He is a tough but fair opponent and quickly gains the trust of the tribunal or court. He remains calm under fire and is able to remain pragmatic in order to secure the best results for his clients.’
The Legal 500, 2021

‘Has got great technical skills in terms of strategy whilst remaining practical and ensuring there is a solution for the client.” He is very pragmatic, experienced and able to give very good advice on what will and will not work.’
Chambers and Partners, 2020

‘A compelling and persuasive advocate who remains calm under fire.’ (The Legal 500, 2020). ‘A persuasive and commanding advocate and clever strategist.’
The Legal 500, 2019

‘A lawyer of great experience and ability’
Financial Markets Tribunal, Dubai, March 2018

Ian accepts public access work in appropriate circumstances and has advised and represented businesses, employers and individual clients under the scheme.

In 2024 Ian delivered a seminar in Manchester to Inspectors of the ORR on notice appeals: law and practice.

In 2024 he was the speaker taking part in podcasts discussing the Employment Relations Bill with a firm of solicitors.

He also presented seminars and webinars on Sponsor Licensing, Work Routes into the UK, the Right to Work and Sports Immigration Law for MBL.

In 2021 Ian delivered webinars on ‘Staying the appeal’ (a critique of Shiva Ltd v Boyd (Admin Court), ‘No Jab, No Job?’ (on the anticipated introduction of vaccine passports in some workplaces), ‘A review of Sector Specific Guidance on covid restrictions in some workplaces’, and ‘Business Immigration- An Introductory Guide.’

Ian is a Non-Executive Director of a Company concerned with breakthrough energy storage technology through the development of high energy supercapacitors.

• Health and Safety Lawyers Association
• Employment Lawyers Association
• Immigration Industry Association

BSc Biochemistry, LLB Law

Click here for Ian’s Privacy Notice