After spending 25 years running his own business Melvyn decided on a dramatic change of direction. In 1993 he went to university for the first time and took a full-time LLB honours course graduating in summer 1996 with first class honours. He was called to the Bar by Lincoln’s Inn in 1997 and, immediately after completing pupillage at the end of September 1998, he commenced in practice as a barrister. He joined 7 New Square in April 1999 where he is now Deputy Head of Chambers, Chair of the Management Committee, and Chambers’ Treasurer.

View Full Profile

Melvyn’s specialist areas of practice are Employment, Commercial and Chancery and he covers a wide range of matters falling within these subjects. In employment he appears for and advises both employers and employees in about equal measure and appears regularly in Employment Tribunals and the EAT, as well as in the County Court and High Court. His commercial practice is very wide-ranging covering all kinds of commercial disputes as well as statutory obligations. Chancery work includes partnership, probate, and a broad variety of property-related matters.

Professional Memberships:

A disability discrimination case in the Employment Tribunal, Punch v Maldon Carers Centre, where Melvyn Harris represented the successful Claimant in late 2008 was cited in "Focus On Disability", a feature in the June 2009 issue of IDS Employment Law Brief on page 18. The case concerned the alleged discriminatory treatment meted out to the disabled Claimant, the alleged failure of the Respondent (a charity whose main purpose was to assist carers of disabled persons) to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate her disability, and unfair dismissal which she claimed was connected to her disability. In its judgment the Tribunal commented that it was unimpressed with the evidence of the Respondent's witnesses following Melvyn's cross-examination. It found that the stated ground for dismissal of the Claimant was not redundancy as claimed but that was simply a pretext to get rid of her and went on to find that the dismissal was for a discriminatory reason. It also found in favour of the Claimant on many of her complaints of less favourable treatment and of failing to make adjustments. A remedies hearing was listed but proved to be unnecessary as the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant a sum approaching £100,000.    

Hide Full Profile

Reported Cases

Publications