A former Southwark Council worker has been ordered to pay £20,000 towards the local authority’s legal costs after an employment tribunal heard she secretly took on a full-time second job while suspended on full pay.
Elisha Neavin, who worked as a practice coordinator in children’s services at the London Borough of Southwark from September 2010 until she was summarily dismissed in March 2025, brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against the council.
Her unfair dismissal claim was struck out at a preliminary hearing. Her discrimination claims went to a final hearing at the London South Employment Tribunal, where Employment Judge Francesca Yardley dismissed them — and ordered Neavin to pay £20,000 as a contribution to the council’s legal costs, estimated at roughly double that figure.
Suspended on full pay, working elsewhere
The case centred on what happened after Neavin was placed on medical suspension. In October 2023 she became unwell and was later suspended from her duties on full pay. She told the council she was living with anxiety and depression and was about to begin EMDR therapy. An occupational health report said it would be “reckless” for her to keep working while undergoing the therapy, warning it could worsen her symptoms.
But two months later, in December 2023, she started an apprenticeship with Centrica, the company that owns British Gas, working 40 hours a week. She did not tell Southwark about the new role.
When the arrangement came to light, Neavin argued that her medical suspension had not expressly forbidden her from taking other work, and described the British Gas role as temporary — even though the apprenticeship was a route into a permanent contract.
The judge rejected that account. Judge Yardley said it was more likely than not that Neavin had never intended to return to her council post, and suggested she had stayed on the payroll because resigning would have meant giving up a full-time salary she was receiving in return for nothing.
Neavin told the tribunal she had not informed the council because she had no intranet access to complete the relevant declaration form. Her contract required her to notify her manager of any work for another employer — partly so the council could monitor her hours under the Working Time Regulations — and stipulated that outside employment must not conflict with the authority’s interests.
YouTube video gave the game away
In September 2024 the council lifted her medical suspension and asked her to arrange a return-to-work plan with her manager. The tribunal heard she repeatedly stalled those discussions. Around the same time, the council discovered she had appeared in a YouTube video promoting her new employer’s apprenticeship scheme, in which she spoke about her council job in the past tense.
The following month she was suspended without pay under Southwark’s disciplinary procedure. She was dismissed in March 2025.
She then took the council to tribunal, arguing that her suspension and dismissal were discriminatory because of her disabilities. The tribunal disagreed, finding that the medical suspension had been a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim, and dismissed the claims.
What the Working Time Regulations require
The case turned in part on the Working Time Regulations, the rules governing how many hours employees in Britain can work. Under the regulations, employers must take reasonable steps to ensure staff do not work more than 48 hours a week on average, calculated over a 17-week reference period. Workers can voluntarily opt out of the limit in writing, but the duty to keep hours within the law sits with the employer — which is why many contracts, like Neavin’s, require employees to declare any second job.
Working a 40-hour week for a second employer on top of a full-time council role would have made it all but impossible for Southwark to meet that duty — even before the question of whether someone signed off as unfit for one job should have been starting another.
What happens next
Costs orders are relatively rare in employment tribunals. Unlike the civil courts, tribunals generally expect each side to bear its own legal costs, and will only order one party to pay the other’s where, for example, a claim had no reasonable prospect of success or a party acted unreasonably in bringing or defending the case.
Where such an order is made and is not paid, it can be enforced through the county court. The paying party can also ask the tribunal to reconsider the decision, or appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal — usually within 42 days of the written reasons being sent out.
The ruling draws a line under the dispute for Southwark, whose administration has been setting out its programme in recent weeks — from recommitting to the Bakerloo line extension to overhauling the borough’s social housing allocations. Tribunals do not always side with employers: a former Met sergeant won more than £10,000 in a race discrimination case against the force.
