Muneeb Akram

Muneeb has experience of personal injury and credit hire claims at all levels from low value RTAs, to multi-track trials. He has significant experience of drafting particulars of claim and defences in litigated cases, including cases involving allegations of low velocity impact and fraud. 

He conducts contested application hearings, fast-track and multi-track trials. He is also experienced at conducting trials involving allegations of fundamental dishonesty, as well as technical, credit hire work.

Muneeb was instructed regularly in inquest proceedings, during his time on the Attorney General's C Panel and is familiar with the rules and procedure of the Coroners Court.

He has advised numerous clients on all stages of the inquest process, from disclosure and investigation, to potential adverse findings and the ambit of the inquest and whether an Article 2 inquest should be held. 

Muneeb has a wide range of experience, and has represented various interested parties including NHS trusts, care homes, individual doctors, those within a prison setting and bereaved family members. He is calm and empathetic, whilst remaining very professional throughout. 

Muneeb represents employee and employer clients across the UK, before the Employment Tribunal, and Employment Appeal Tribunal. He acts for claimants, respondents and trade unions in all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims, wrongful and unfair dismissal cases, claims for unpaid wages and equal pay claims.

Muneeb has conducted a range of employment discrimination matters, including race discrimination, as well as direct and indirect discrimination claims. In addition to numerous cases relating to unfair dismissal, redundancy and discrimination cases, Muneeb has conducted a wide range of employment tribunal cases including the following:
- Unlawful deduction of wages claims arising from Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which refers to “wages properly payable” by an employer to an employee;
- Continuity of employment contracts and consideration of an employee’s terms and conditions of service, including public sector employee claims;
- Breach of contract claims and considering whether such a claim “arises or is outstanding on the termination of the employee’s employment”, applying Article 3 (c) of the Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994;
- Consideration of a claimant’s employment status, including consideration of whether a contract between a claimant and respondent, was one of service within the meaning of Section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996;
- Consideration of whether a claimant was a worker within the meaning of Section 203(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996;

- Claims that a claimant was an employee for the purposes of Section 83 of the Equality Act 2010;
- Claims that a claimant was a worker for the purpose of Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998;
- Claims for pregnancy discrimination pursuant to Section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010, including consideration of the two stage test in discrimination claims, as set down by the Court of Appeal in Wong v Igen Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 142;
- Direct disability discrimination claims under Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, including consideration of issues of “less favourable” treatment, an actual or hypothetical comparator, and establishing the reason for the alleged unfavourable treatment and whether an alleged discriminator acted "because of" a protected characteristic;
- Discrimination arising from disability claims under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, including consideration of issues of “unfavourable treatment”, “because of something arising in consequence of the Claimant’s disability”, and “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”;
- An employer’s knowledge of disability and whether the employer “did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know”, that the Claimant had “the disability”, under Section 15(2) of the Equality Act 2010;
- Claims involving reasonable adjustments under Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Equality Act 2010;
- Harassment related to disability claims under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, including consideration of “unwanted conduct”, “related to a relevant protected characteristic”, “violating dignity” and “offensive environment”;
- Victimisation claims under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, including consideration of “detriment” and whether any detriment is because of a protected act;
- Compensation claims for holiday pay and rest periods under the Working Time Regulations 1998; and
- Whistleblowing and detriment claims, including under Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Muneeb has in-depth knowledge of regulatory law and experience of conducting a range of hearings before healthcare regulators. He is adept at identifying and applying relevant law and evidence in regulatory proceedings. In particular, he has substantial experience of healthcare regulatory matters, including proceedings before the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Dental Council, the Health and Care Professions Council and the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.

Muneeb has experience of advising on and constructing cases at the investigation stage of the process, involving registrants’ fitness to practise. He has been instructed to appear before the respective tribunal and conduct advocacy for the regulatory body or registrant, at both substantive hearings and interim orders hearings. Some examples of Muneeb’s work in this area of law, are as follows:
1. Representing a healthcare registrant, charged with a number of sexual offences against children for which he had stood trial and been found not guilty. An interim suspension order had been placed on his practice by his healthcare regulatory body which was removed following Muneeb's arguments.
2. Representing the Nursing and Midwifery Council in relation to a case involving allegations of neglect by a nurse. The panel found the majority of the allegations proved at the fact finding stage and Muneeb successfully persuaded the panel that both misconduct and impairment of the registrant’s fitness to practise should be found. The panel imposed a conditions of practice order on the registrant, for a period of 12 months. 
3. Successfully representing a healthcare regulator in a case involving allegations of sexual misconduct using reference to previous caselaw.

To instruct Muneeb in civil matters, please contact Rob Johnstone.