Paul Maynard

Paul Maynard, Employment Solicitor

Partner, Employment Law Services

Paul joined Gaby Hardwicke from a Legal 500 firm where he was Head of Civil Litigation. In qualifying as a solicitor he was awarded the Law Society’s National Prize for Outstanding Achievement. In 2006 he was awarded a Masters degree in Advanced Employment Practice, with Distinction, by the De Montfort University, Leicester. He specialises in employment law and has been involved in some of the leading cases relating to health and safety, whistle blowing, unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

He has a recognised expertise in dealing with commercial disputes involving directors’ duties, confidential information, database rights and restrictive covenant injunctions, having appeared in many of the leading cases on this subject in recent years. He is one of a small number of lawyers in the country to have successfully fought a case in the European Court of Human Rights. He is a regular media contributor and presenter on employment issues.


Tel: 01323 435 900

Fax: 01323 435 901


What his clients say

QuoteGaby Hardwicke were recommended to me by my accountancy firm, and I am very grateful for the recommendation. In particular, my recommendation is for Paul Maynard, whose 'no nonsense' approach was refreshing. We felt that he listened to us right from the start and gave practical advice at every step of the way. The satisfactory outcome was in no small part due to his advice - and although I hope we don't need a solicitor in the future, I would definitely return to Paul.

Julian Smith, Managing Director, The IAM Group, London

Quote[To Paul Maynard of Gaby Hardwicke and Lucy Bone of counsel]: Once again, a big thank you for yesterday. You were both superstars and you should feel proud of what a great job you both did.

Rob Mulligan, Managing Director, Whitmar Publications Limited

QuoteMany thanks for the satisfactory conclusion of this process. I would like to thank you for your expert guidance and help. I would not hesitate to use both your service and that of Gaby Hardwicke generally in the future.

Ian Dyer, Managing Director, New Era Technical Consulting Ltd

QuoteMost importantly, I would like to thank you for the excellent service you have provided and the result you have achieved for me. Each interaction with you has put me at ease during a situation that could have been stressful. My assessment of your abilities, after witnessing you in action during a tribunal case quite a few years ago, was spot on.

Name omitted due to commercial sensitivity


Notable cases

Whitmar Publications Ltd v Gamage [2013] EWHC 1881 (Ch)

Paul represented Whitmar Publications Ltd in its application to the Chancery Division of the High Court for a springboard injunction against three former employees and their new publishing company, to prevent them dealing with customers whose names featured on business cards unlawfully removed by one of the employees when he left.

Mr Peter Leaver QC, sitting as a Deputy High court judge, not only granted the springboard injunction until trial or further order but ordered that control and management of the LinkedIn groups the defendants had created whilst employed by Whitmar should be returned to Whitmar and also ordered that the defendants were not permitted to access the said groups. This is the first case in which an injunction has been granted relating to the transfer of LinkedIn contacts.

Hydropool Hot Tubs Ltd v Roberjot and Others [2001] EWHC 121 (Ch)

Paul acted for one of the UK’s leading hot tub suppliers in a dispute against a rival company over the ownership of a customer database. An interim injunction had been granted prohibiting the defendants from using the database pending trial. A mandatory order had also been made for the disclosure of a list of contacts which the defendants had failed to comply with. Indeed, the defendants had provided a fictitious list of contacts and lied in their affidavit evidence. The court found both defendants in contempt of court and dispensed with the technical arguments they raised about service and whether perjury could be punished as a civil rather than a criminal contempt.

Crowson Fabrics Ltd v Rider & Others [2007] EWHC 2942 (Ch)

Paul acted for the successful claimant, Crowson Fabrics Ltd, in its application for an interim springboard injunction against its former Operations Director and UK Sales manager. The High Court held that individuals who copied and retained various documents belonging to their ex-employer concerning customer and supplier contact details and sales figures during employment had not acted in breach of their implied duties of confidentiality because much of the information was in the public domain.

However, irrespective of whether the information was confidential, the ex-employees’ “illegitimate actions” meant they had breached their duty of fidelity and in the case of the more senior employee, his fiduciary duty and the court found in favour of the claimant, whilst providing useful guidance on the measure of damages in such cases. The case was also remarkable for its speed in getting to court with an initial hearing on a Friday and a three-day trial starting the following Wednesday.

Willow Oak Developments Ltd v Silverwood [2006] IRLR 607

Paul acted for Willow Oak Developments Ltd, which traded as Windsor Recruitment, a recruitment company specialising in the social care sector. Willow Oak found a number of its employees had been approached and/or were planning to leave to work for a rival. New employment contracts containing post-termination restrictive covenants were issued to the staff of its Leeds branch. The Court of Appeal upheld the EAT’s decision that dismissal of the employees concerned for refusing to sign the new restrictive covenants could potentially be fair, even if the covenants themselves were unreasonably wide and potentially unenforceable.

Swift v Chief Constable of Wiltshire [2004 IRLR 540

Paul acted for the claimant, a civilian police communications officer, in a claim of disability discrimination brought because her employers had failed to make reasonable adjustments to her shift patterns to enable her to avoid two colleagues whom she claimed had bullied her.

Significantly, the case clarified a previously undecided aspect of disability discrimination law. The case hinged on whether Miss Swift had a recurring condition. The EAT ruled that the question was not whether the illness itself was likely to recur but whether the substantial adverse effect was likely to recur.

Hutt v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2003] ALL ER (D) 62 (DEC)

Paul acted for the claimant in a civil claim brought against the Metropolitan Police for false imprisonment and negligence in respect of the medical treatment he received whilst in police custody. Although Mr Hutt’s claims for false imprisonment and assault before a judge and jury at Central London County Court had succeeded to a limited extent, the Court of Appeal, agreeing with Mr Hutt’s submissions, found there had been no power to detain him at all and that the judge’s direction to the jury on the issue of negligence was flawed. Mr Hutt’s appeal was upheld and a re-trial ordered.

Edwards and Lewis v United Kingdom (Application Nos 39647/98 and 40461/98 European Court of Human Rights)

Paul acted for two claimants (one of them a businessman of previous good character) who claimed the procedures used to secure their convictions for supply of drugs and counterfeit currency amounted to entrapment and that UK criminal procedures did not afford sufficient protection to provide a fair trial. In both cases the trial judge had considered evidence put forward by the prosecution in the absence of the defendants or their lawyers to defeat the defendants’ arguments of entrapment.

In a ground-breaking decision, the European Court of Human Rights found against the UK Government and concluded that the procedure, which failed to allow the defence the adversarial opportunity to test the evidence, was unfair and infringed the defendants’ human rights. The case led to a change in the law and introduction of the practice of the Attorney General appointing special independent Counsel to examine sensitive material.

Beart v HM Prison Service (No.1) [2003] IRLR 238

Paul acted for Mrs Beart, a civil servant who worked for the Prison Service, in her successful claim for disability discrimination by reason of failure to make a reasonable adjustment and for unfair dismissal. The Prison Service failed in its challenge to the tribunal’s decision in both the EAT and the Court of Appeal.

Beart v HM Prison Service (No.2) [2005] EWCA Civ 467

Having lost on liability, the Prison Service appealed the tribunal’s findings in Mrs Beart’s case on compensation to the EAT and then to the Court of Appeal. Again, they were unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Prison Service’s submissions in scathing terms and upheld a substantial costs award in Mrs Beart’s favour. The award of damages remains one of the highest ever made to any claimant for disability discrimination.

Kelly v Connex South Eastern [2003] UKEAT 0607.03.3010

Paul successfully represented James Kelly, another train driver, who had raised numerous health and safety concerns to his employer, Connex South Eastern, in his claim for unfair dismissal. Connex failed in its challenge of the tribunal’s findings in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Holden v Connex South Eastern (ET Case No2301550/00 15.4.02)

Paul acted on behalf of Laurence Holden, a train driver and health and safety representative, in his successful claim against Connex South Eastern for unfair constructive dismissal. This was one of the first claims brought under the whistle blowing provisions introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

Contact us

If you don't know the email address of your contact or want to make a general enquiry, please use the form below.

Help stop spam. Enter 172848AqE