Mukhtiar had been ranked in employment by Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 since 2018 for his Claimant and Respondent work. His depth of knowledge of employment law, coupled with over twenty-five years’ experience in employment relations, enables him to provide sound advice and practical solutions to employers and workers alike.

He has a particular interest in whistleblowing and discrimination disputes involving senior managers and executives in three sectors:

• Financial services. Mukhtiar has represented a number of senior executives in whistleblowing, discrimination and dismissal claims, which often call upon his experience with regulatory matters, partnership and company law. Since 2020, he has regularly advised and represented senior managers and executives selected for redundancy, often in a pool of one . He has represented businesses pursing directors for breach of fiduciary duty; contractual claims relating to renumeration; breach of restrictive covenants; and claims relating to confidential information.
   
• Healthcare. Mukhtiar’s previous experience in professional discipline is an invaluable tool when representing clients across the whole range of healthcare professions. Mukhtiar has dealt with numerous whistleblowing claims brought by doctors, nurses and other practitioners, which often overlap with sex, race or disability discrimination. He has a particular interest in global healthcare justice and for four years was a NED at Primary Care International. 
   
• Police. Mukhtiar represents police officers and staff across the country. As a former highly decorated Detective Inspector who has investigated all levels of crime across the country, he is able to use his experience to provide practical and robust advice and advocacy. He has experience of police cases involving disability discrimination; race and religious discrimination; and whistleblowing. Mukhtiar has experience of cases raising national security issues and closed material.

Through his work as a member of the Advisory Council of whistleblowing charity Protect, he advocates for law reform, culture change and sharing best practice. As a voluntary member of Protect’s Legal Support Network, he provides advice and representation, particularly on complex cases and interventions.

He is instructed in cases that overlap with his commercial practice, including shareholder prejudice; breach of director duties; breach of confidentiality; restraint of trade; partnership disputes; and wages claims, in particular bonuses.

Mukhtiar’s investigation experience involved a wide range of covert and other investigative techniques and spanned across all types of crime including homicide; so-called honour crime; serious and organised crime; rape and serious sexual assaults; fraud; and armed robberies. In addition to advice and representation, he is able to use his 23 years’ experience as a detective inspective, to conduct workplace investigations.

NOTABLE AND RECENT CASES

• MacLennan v British Psychological Society [2024] EAT 166. Led by Jeremy Lewis KC, represented leading whistleblowing charity Protect in a successful appeal concerning whether whistleblowing protection from detriment should extend to charity trustees and/or any worker that made protected disclosures prior to employment. The judgment can be found here; read more about the case here (2024).
• Represented a black female managing director in a sex and race discrimination claim brought against a global bank. Allegations included that she was unfairly criticised and disciplined based on racial stereotyping. Settlement was in excess of £700,000 (2024).
• Knight v Combined Technical Solutions Ltd. Represented the employer at final hearing who successfully defended age and race discrimination allegations in a pool of one redundancy situation (2024).
• Represented an NHS worker who made allegations of sexual assault and harassment against a senior doctor. Settlement included the Trust committing to widescale changes to the way it investigates such allegations in the future (2024).
• Ahmed v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis. Represented a police officer at a 7-day final hearing who successfully argued that the police failed to make a reasonable adjustment of working from home exclusively and that he had suffered harassment in being required to return to the office. Press coverage can be found here (2024).
• Anderson v CAE Crewing Services Limited [2024] EAT 78. Represented the Appellant who succeeded in two separate appeals: Appeal 1 concerned agency/principal under section 109 of the Equality Act 2010; disability discrimination; and adequacy of reasons. Appeal 2 concerned unfavourable treatment because of something arises in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010; and adequacy of reasons. The judgment is available here; read more about the case here (2024).
• Ramos v Nottinghamshire Women’s Aid Limited [2024] EAT 67. His Honour Judge Tayler said (of Mukhtiar), “I am grateful for his clear, skilful and concise arguments” [at 11]. The judgment is available here.
• Verifone (UK) Ltd v Ms K Zena [2024] EAT 54. Appeal and cross-appeal, burden of proof section 136 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment is available here.
• Represented a senior police officer in a disability discrimination (failing to make reasonable adjustment), which was concluded favourably following cross examination of the Respondent’s witness (2024).
   
• Obtained a settlement of £160,000 on behalf of a senior executive for a global metal derivative broker and dealer, following a claim for age discrimination and unfair dismissal (2023). 
   
• Represented a leading project geophysicist who successfully argued that the Respondent global geoscience company had created a sham redundancy and that he was subject to aggressive conduct after he challenged it. Claims for age discrimination, unfair dismissal, victimisation and breach of contract succeeded and he was awarded over £340,000 (2023). The judgment is available here. Press coverage here.
   
• Zena v Verifone Case No. 3303409/2021 (2023). Represented the (female black) Claimant who successfully argued that she was unfairly dismissed and victimised by the Respondent multinational company, which provides technology solutions for electronic payments globally. This was a “pool of one” redundancy and the tribunal determined that the consultation and redundancy of her UK-based EMEA Regional Controller position was a sham, constructed so that an individual based in Poland could take her place. Somewhat rarely, the tribunal reached a majority decision that she was also victimised by failing to adequately investigate her allegations of race discrimination (2023). The judgment is available here.
• A 6-day hearing representing a senior female manager bringing unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claims against a leading block and estate management company (2023).
   
• Successfully argued, on behalf of an international company responsible for providing feed solutions to farms, that a claim for unfair dismissal be struck out as premature (2023).
   
• Gooch v Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Case No 3309559/2022. On behalf of the Respondent successfully argued that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and should be struck out (2023).
   
• Laing v Bury & Bolton Citizens Advice [2022] EAT 85. Acting pro bono for the Appellant in five conjoined appeals involving witness orders, deposit orders (for a race discrimination claim), victimisation and apparent bias. The EAT agreed that there had been an appearance of unconscious confirmation bias. The judgment is available here. Read more about the case here.  
   
• An intervention at the EAT where the issue was whether a charity trustee could bring a whistleblowing claim, in particular the application of Articles 10 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (2022).
   
• Represented a Claimant solicitor against a leading firm, who was dismissed whilst on maternity leave for allegedly failing to accept lesser terms during the Covid-19 pandemic (2022).
   
• Represented the Claimant who brought claims for age, sex and race discrimination against Warner Bros (2022).
   
• Represented in-house counsel of a pension fund managing company, who brought whistleblowing detriment and dismissal claims following disclosures regarding the board’s corporate governance duties (2022). 
   
• Instructed by two Claimants for a 22-day hearing against a leading European Bank and a number of individual workers. The claims included race and sex discrimination; whistleblowing; and Equal Pay (2022).  
   
• Represented a Claimant for a 12-day racial harassment, victimisation and dismissal claim against a high-profile charity. The client alleged she was gaslighted following her allegations of discrimination which included tokenism (2021).
   
• 5-day whistleblowing case. Acted for a Claimant whistleblower (making serious allegations of fraud) against a multinational technology corporation (2021). 
   
• Acted for a Respondent charity in a claim involving working time, non-payment of wages and illegality (2021).
   
• Mehdinejad v Royal Mail Case No: 2204261/2019 (2020). Disability harassment claim, including an award of aggravated damages, where the claimant suffered from ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. The client said Mukhtiar “understood my needs as a disabled claimant… this was critical to success”. Press coverage can be found here.
   
• 7-day unfair dismissal claim on behalf of a Claimant junior trader who had been dismissed by a leading global bank following allegations of market manipulation (spoofing) (2020).
   
• Sethi v Elements Personnel Services Ltd Case no. 2300234/2018 (2019). Successfully argued that the no-beard policy of a recruitment agency, which provided staff to 5-star hotels in London, was indirect religious discrimination as it put Sikhs at a particular disadvantage. The case was reported globally and the judgment is available here.
• Parkin v Leeds City Council UKEAT/0178/19 (2019). Successfully appeals on two grounds that allegations of sex discrimination and harassment should not have been struck out either as there being no prospect of success and the ET failed to apply the two-part test of Hasan v Tesco Stores. The judgment is noteworthy as to the approach to multiple discrimination claims with lengthy pleadings and is available here.
• A 7-day religious harassment and victimisation claim (2019). Successfully argued that a Muslim employee was subject to religious harassment the day following the Manchester terrorist attack at the Ariana Grande concert and was victimised after he raised a complaint. The judgment is available here.
   
• Representing a police officer who had brought three whistleblowing and victimisation claims. Some of his protected disclosures were made to third parties and attracted national media attention (2019).
   
• Unfair/wrongful dismissal dispute involving a city trader (2018). The central issue was the culture of the (well-known investment) bank at the time, including the prevalence of the alleged misconduct. The case involved a consideration of how a settlement, including a reference, could be achieved in light of the Senior Managers Regime.
   
• A 3-day county court case for unpaid pay with counterclaims for fraud and breach of post-termination restrictive covenants (2018). Having been instructed for 2 years on a direct public access basis, successfully settled on the first day of trial securing the full value of the claim and costs.
   
• 4-day unfair dismissal case brought by a director-employee involving allegations of financial irregularity and a breach of fiduciary duties (2018).
   
• A county court claim for a director’s payment in lieu of notice which had been withheld after the employer alleged to have subsequently discovered breaches of fiduciary duties (2018).
   
• 4-day disability discrimination case involving harassment because the employee had a hearing impairment (2018).
   
• 3-day claim including age discrimination, detriment, unfair dismissal and holiday pay. Successfully argued that a rolled-up holiday pay clause was a sham (2017).
   
• Between 2017-2018, represented two Claimants and one Defendant in separate negligent misstatement claims arising from alleged negligent references to existing and former employees. Two of these cases involved former police officers.

Mukhtiar’s commercial practice involves a broad spectrum of commercial law and large parts overlap with employment disputes particularly restraint of trade, confidential information and director/shareholder disputes.

He has experience of a number of director/shareholder disputes involving allegations of fraud; dishonest assistance; unfair prejudice; and breach of fiduciary duties. Mukhtiar has advised on contractual disputes arising from Covid-19 relating to the interpretation of force majeure clauses and frustration.

Mukhtiar undertakes some traditional Chancery work for existing clients, including contested probate; trust of land; and commercial and residential landlord/tenant disputes.

NOTABLE CASES

• Advising on an alleged breach of loan claim valued at circa £320,000. This includes whether there was an intention to create legal relations (2024).
• Advised on behalf of a company specialising in scientific design innovation regarding the enforceability of restrictive covenants and injunctive relief (2022).
   
• Represented a vulnerable claimant in a breach of contract claim brought against a builder who undertook a number of projects at her property, without completing any and yet continued demanding payments. The Claimant obtained an order of over £65,000 plus indemnity costs (Central London County Court 2022).
   
• Represented a Claimant company regarding non-payment of transport services. The matter was settled on the doors of the court (2022).
   
• Acted on behalf of one of the hundreds of vulnerable (new to the UK) victims of mis-sold mortgages by Dharam Prakash Gopee (through his various companies including Barons Bridge Finance). An order was obtained removing the charge on various grounds, which included that the mortgage was provided by an unauthorised lender under section 40 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and were not enforceable without OFT approval or order of the court (Central London County Court 2021). Mukhtiar has acted in similar cases in the past, instructed by DSD law in Kent. News coverage about the prosecution brought against Mr Gopee can be found here and details of a confiscation order totalling £5million here.
   
• Represented professional landlords in a dispute against their service company and insurer following significant damage and loss (circa £300,00) caused by a burst pipe (2021).
   
• Acted on behalf of a vulnerable individual who had loaned circa £400,000 to two individuals who subsequently denied the existence of the loans and one defendant denied agency making counter-allegations including fraud. The client successfully recovered the capital sum, interest and costs following settlement on the first day of a trial conducted by Zoom (2020).
   
• Acted on behalf of a UK company who brought a breach of contract claim against a US company it had contracted with to provide sales and marketing. The key issue was of contractual interpretation, particularly whether an obligation to provide notice of termination could be circumvented by exercising a right not to provide work. The Claimant obtained a favourable settlement following lengthy litigation (2019).
   
• Without notice injunction (settled on the return date). Successfully restrained the winding up of a small football club where there was a genuine dispute over the alleged debt for development work carried out at the ground. The defence included an alleged non-disclosed conflict of interest in the construction company by the club’s former finance director (2018).
   
• Between 2017-2018, represented two Claimants and one Defendant in separate negligent misstatement claims arising from alleged negligent references to existing and former employees. Two of these cases involved former police officers.
   
• An extended fast-track trial regarding unpaid private school fees. The case involved the applicability of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and counterclaims regarding the school’s representations and performance (2018).
   
• C v B [2016] EWHC 3567 (QB): appeal against the striking out, on limitation grounds, of a counterclaim to a possession claim for knowing assistance to a breach of trust involving secured loans used to invest in a Ponzi scheme. Mr. Justice Mitting stated, “She is now represented on a Direct Access basis by Mr. Mukhtiar Singh who has presented her case with moderation and realism. I am grateful to him, as she should be as well”.
   
• Acted on behalf of a specialist environmental clearance company who undertook work as part of the development of a petrol station to residential properties. The Defendants ran defences involving privity and agency, but ultimately conceded on the day of trial (2017).
   
• Acted on behalf of the Defendant denying the existence of a number of loans; the Claimant withdrew his claim at the end of the first day of trial (2017).
   
• On the day of trial, successfully negotiated settlement in a claim under s.14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, for rescission and damages involving the purchase of a defective vehicle (2017).
   
• Professional negligence dispute against a solicitor acting for an elderly purchaser of a lifetime lease who alleged she believed she was obtaining the freehold title (2017).
   
• Represented an ex-director of two sister companies (one UK and one US) in a breach of contracts claim where the companies had relied upon respective Payment In Lieu of Notice clauses following termination, but subsequently refused to pay citing breach of fiduciary duties and fraud allegedly subsequently discovered.
   
• Settled favourably following mediation (2016).
   
• 4-day multi-track trial involving an alleged loan of £200,000 to a sibling; successfully defended the case and obtained costs on an indemnity basis (2016).
   
• 4-day multi-track trial involving claims and counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, where the dispute was over the completion of renovation works and a failure to execute a commercial lease (2016).
   
• 2-day multi-track trial involving a substantial loan and a counterclaim for breach of a partnership agreement, which thereafter resulted in protracted enforcement proceedings (2016).
   
• Successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of the Claimant in a dispute against guarantor Defendants concerning a failed overseas investment (2016).
   
• Successful application, with costs, to set aside default judgment entered in favour of a leading parking charges enforcement company for breach of contract. Argued implied terms could be incorporated thus the Defendant had a real prospect of defending the claim (2015).

Mukhtiar accepts instructions for professional discipline cases and applies his robust advocacy skills to his practical awareness. He has a good understanding of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime as employment cases involving the financial services sector often have a regulatory aspect.

NOTABLE CASES

• Mukhtiar represented a teacher in an appeal against the decision by an examinations regulator (the AQA) to suspend a teacher for improper assistance to students.
   
• He has been instructed via Direct Public Access and by the Royal College of Nursing to represent nurses and has been instructed for lengthy hearings involving allegation of dishonesty.
   
• He has appeared in a number of hearings before the General Optical Council. He has experience of an appeal to the High Court against a decision of the General Optical Council.
   
• Mukhtiar defended a practitioner in suitability proceedings brought by NHS England. The practitioner faced serious probity allegations, akin to fraud. The proceedings raised legal issues regarding the interpretation of the National Health Service (Performers Lists) Regulations 2013; and the legal effect of breaches of the removal procedures.
   
• He represented a police officer in a four-day hearing, where the officer faced allegations of racism and sexism. A key issue was which Home Office guidance was applicable.

Mukhtiar is ranked in employment and commercial dispute litigation by Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500. He has expertise in harassment claims under the Equality Act and disability discrimination cases particularly non-visible disabilities.  He has a particular interest in whistleblowing and claims arising out of allegations of unethical and criminal conduct of employers.

He has a strong interest in areas that overlap with employment law and in particular stress at work and harassment claims. In his early years of practice, he enjoyed a broad common law practice, which has provided him with detailed knowledge of civil litigation including procedure and costs.

Mukhtiar has represented clients who have brought parallel claims in the employment tribunal and the County Court. Examples of his work included:

• Mehdinejad v Royal Mail Case No: 2204261/2019 (2020). Disability harassment claim, including an award of aggravated damages and personal injury, where the claimant suffered from ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. The client said Mukhtiar “understood my needs as a disabled claimant… this was critical to success”. Press coverage can be found here.
   
• Successfully represented a client in a claim brought in the county court under the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 seeking damages and injunctive relief, which also resulted in a significant costs award. 
   
• Represented the personal representative of an ex-employee who, having entered into a settlement agreement following allegations of bullying and harassment, brought a personal injury claim against the former employer (and NHS Trust) due to depression. The main issues in the case were foreseeability and the interpretation of the extent of the settlement agreement.

Learn more about Mukhtiar Singh, including his journey to the Bar and his social mobility work:

• A new face at Doughty Street Chambers | Legal Brief (legal-brief.co.uk) (2022)
   
• Not All Lawyers Have Law Degrees: Mukhtiar Singh: Taking a risk with someone who’s different on Apple Podcasts (2021)
   
• The Lawyer Portal - Case Study: University of Law, Mukhtiar Singh
   
• The Bar Council - Spotlight on Mukhtiar Singh, Social Mobility Advocate
   
• The Sikh Way - Launch of £4000 Guru Nanak social mobility scholarship
   
• New Law Journal - Guru Nanak Scholarship launched
   
• Sikh Siyasat News - Sikh Education Council and Barrister Mukhtiar Singh Awards £4,000 'Guru Nanak Social Mobility Scholarship'
   
• Mukhtiar Singh on Twitter promoting Guru Nanak Social Mobility Scholarships
   
• The Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn - Facebook post promoting Guru Nanak Social Mobility Scholarships
   
• Counsel Magazine - Extraordinary Working Lives: Mukhtiar Singh
   
• Counsel Magazine - First Guru Nanak award
   
• Mukhtiar Singh and Danielle Manson of Garden Court talk diversity on BBC Radio 4 Law in Action (12 June 2019)
   
• Not All Lawyers Have Law Degrees: Mukhtiar Singh: Taking a risk with someone who’s different on Apple Podcasts