George Clough

England

Payne Hicks Beach LLP · George is an Associate in the Employment department, with four years’ experience in acting alongside Peter McRoberts for senior executives in the banking, finance, property, legal, fashion, and wealth management industries. He has assisted in advising CEOs and CFOs of major companies as well as partners in Limited Liability Partnerships. George regularly advises these Senior Executives on negotiations regarding exit packages and resolving actual or potential disputes. This includes advising on unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims, with a particular focus on health, professional conduct, regulatory and reputational issues. He also advises on often complex discrimination cases including disability and sex discrimination issues and equal pay claims. He assists in high value settlement negotiations, mediations, and Employment Tribunal litigation. On the other side of the coin, George also regularly assists in litigation, representing respondents in unfair dismissal, wages, breach of contract, and discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunals alongside James Townsend and Domonique McRae. On the non-litigious side, George has experience assisting on a broad range of employment law issues, including advising employers on TUPE and redundancy processes and both employers and senior executives on contractual and statutory obligations, including post-termination restrictions. George assisted in the high profile case of Ramchandani v Citibank in 2019 where Peter McRoberts represented Rohan Ramchandani, a former Citibank forex trader, who succeeded in his unfair dismissal claim. He also assisted in the well reported case of Richard Bowley v Rio Tinto involving whistleblowing claims against Rio Tinto regarding the Oyu Tolgoi mine in Mongolia. More recently, he successfully represented two individual respondents in the case of Mr A Ali vs Paradox Media Group (in liquidation) and others 3300605/2023 where the claims for detriments suffered due to having made whistleblowing disclosures were dismissed in their entity, the Tribunal preferring the respondents’ evidence on every point, and finding that no whistleblowing disclosures capable of protection had been made.

England