Ingrid Simler QC
Year of Call 1987 Silk 2006
Ingrid Simler QC is a leading silk, recognised for her expertise across a range of areas including Employment Law, Tax Litigation, Public and Administrative Law, and Human Rights. Her employment practice covers all aspects of employment law, from high value discrimination cases to injunctions restraining team moves. Ingrid has expertise in handling individual and corporate domicile and residence litigation for tax purposes, both for and against tax-payers. She has been involved in most (if not all) individual domicile and residence cases taken by HMRC over the last decade, and most recently appeared for HMRC in the Supreme Court in the landmark case concerning HMRC’s published guidance, IR20: Gaines-Cooper & Davies & James v HMRC [2011] UKSC 47.
Recent notable cases:
- UK Uncut Legal Action Limited v. HMRC & Goldman Sachs (won the right for campaign group UK Uncut to challenge a so called ‘sweetheart’ deal struck with Goldman Sachs by HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) in 2010)
- Gaines-Cooper & Davies & James v HMRC [2011] UKSC 47
- Sharon Shoesmith v London Borough of Haringey and others [2011] EWCA Civ 642; [2010] EWHC 852 (Admin) (judicial review challenge to dismissal of Director of Children’s Services following death of Baby P).
- Eweida v British Airways PLC [2010] EWCA Civ 80 CA ( early case under the Religion or Belief Regulations. The case concerned the employer’s requirement to comply with its uniform policy that prevented the visible display of jewellery)
Ingrid Simler QC is named as one of The Lawyer’s Hot 100 2013. This is a roundup of the year’s 100 high-achieving names picked by the editorial team at The Lawyer. Click here to read the article and watch the video interview.
In June 2012, Ingrid was honoured with the award for ‘Outstanding Achievement for services to the law, as a barrister and as head of chambers’ at the second annual Europe Women in Business Law Awards. The Awards, run by Euromoney Legal Media Group, recognise the best firms for women in business law across Europe and the best individual lawyers in their practice areas, as well as acknowledging the best in-house teams and individuals.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The "incredibly impressive" Ingrid Simler QC is a "ferocious cross-examiner" who is "universally liked by her clients," sources say. Her areas of expertise include appellate cases, high-value discrimination claims and restrictive covenant matters. She recently acted for an investment bank in a case in which the claimant sought reinstatement or re-engagement and £13 million in compensation for unlawful sex discrimination. Chambers UK 2013
Ingrid Simler QC also of Devereux Chambers is "a very effective litigator who achieves great victories." She frequently appears for HMRC in relation to resident and non-domicile tax disputes, and recently played a role in the precedent-setting Gaines-Cooper & Davies & James v HMRC. This case concerned HMRC's written guidelines on residence for tax purposes. Chambers UK 2013
Ingrid Simler QC is "a popular choice for really tough cases." "Tenacious and very cool under pressure," she is an exceptionally good cross-examiner, as well as being "accessible and crystal-clear in her advice to clients .... Interviewees commend her for her "fantastic analysis and ability to put her message across in plain English."
Chambers UK 2012Ingrid Simler QC, a client-oriented silk who gets to grips quickly with the detail of a case and proves robust in negotiation. Impressing both clients and courts, she “comes up trumps time and time again.” Recent highlights for her include representing Haringey Council in the Sharon Shoesmith dismissal and representing British Airways in the religious discrimination claim Eweida v BA. Chambers UK 2011
Ingrid Simler QC is named Lawyer of the Week in 'The Times' newspaper.
Ingrid, instructed by John Evason of Baker & McKenzie, acted for British Airways in the Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the airline did not indirectly discriminate against Nadia Eweida, an employee, on the ground of her religion, by adopting a staff dress code that forbade the wearing of a visible neck adornment, such as a cross. The Times newspaper 2010A ‘formidable advocate and ferocious cross-examiner’, Ingrid Simler QC is well known for her experience in handling cases with an EU dimension. Legal 500 2011
Ingrid Simler QC has a "very firm manner" and "good cross-examination" skills, coupled with a "great empathy for clients facing distressing circumstances" Legal 500 2010
Ingrid Simler QC is "excellent at marshalling detail and proves impressive in the EAT." She is "amazingly client-friendly and empathetic," particularly when it comes to discrimination cases. Chambers UK 2009
Ingrid Simler QC of Devereux Chambers has a potent and varied revenue-side practice. She is feared by other members of the Bar, as she is "one of the most ferocious cross-examiners around" and has "immense trial experience." Chambers UK 2009
CloseEmployment
Add to PortfolioIngrid’s employment practice covers all areas of UK employment law, and their EU dimension. Two areas single her out. First, the quality of her appellate work - she is very much at home in the EAT and Court of Appeal; secondly, her ability to handle high-net worth discrimination claims, which makes her a favourite of City lawyers and FTSE-500 companies alike. She has extensive experience of litigation and advice in this area which has been her principal field of practice throughout her career. Her work covers restrictive covenants and team moves, breach of confidence, employment related injunctions, wrongful and unfair dismissal, redundancy, all aspects of discrimination and equal pay, working time, national minimum wage, pension schemes, share schemes, bonus schemes, retirement, issues of employment taxation, trade disputes.
Significant recent cases include (among many others):
- Sharon Shoesmith v London Borough of Haringey and others [2010] EWHC 852; [2011] EWCA Civ 642: judicial review challenge to dismissal of Director of Children’s Services following death of Baby P
- Secretary of State for Justice v Slee [2011] EWCA Civ 23 (case concerning long-term compensation for Magistrates’ Court clerk under Crombie Regulations)
- Mott MacDonald Ltd v Rivkin (2011) EAT (age discrimination and the burden of proof)
- Eweida v British Airways PLC [2010] EWCA Civ 80 CA : early case under the Religion or Belief Regulations. The case concerned the employer’s requirement to comply with its uniform policy that prevented the visible display of jewellery
- Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust v Ugiagbe [2010] UKEAT 0068_09_1305: appeal on grounds of failure to explain why inferences of discrimination could be drawn from facts found proved
- Burgin v Al Jazeera [2008] (a high profile race and sex discrimination case against the news channel, Al Jazeera)
- Preece & others v Cabinet Office [April 2008] (age discrimination test cases to challenge the Civil Service Compensation Scheme regarding the differing levels of redundancy payments made to civil servants on termination of employment dependant on age at date of termination)
- GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs [2008] EWCA Civ 17 (whether assessment of compensation for dismissal can take account of pre-dismissal conduct in a constructive dismissal case)
- BLOT v GFI Holdings [July 2008] (multimillion dollar bonus claims litigated in context of team move from GFI to Tullett Prebon)
- Perry v Dresdner Kleinwort [2007] (high profile race discrimination claim by Australian investment banker against German investment bank)
- Venables v Hornby [2004] ICR 42, [2003] 1 WLR 3022, HL (the meaning of 'retirement' in exempt approved pension schemes)
- Kamlesh Bahl v. Law Society [2003] IRLR 640, EAT; [2004] EWCA Civ 1070 (drawing of inferences in race and sex discrimination cases)
Tax
Add to PortfolioIngrid appears regularly before the statutory tribunals and in the High Court and Divisional Court on appeal and on judicial review. Numerous recent cases have involved questions of employment status of workers under contracts with a number of different Employment Businesses and Agencies for purposes of determining whether travel expenses are allowable deductions for tax and NI purposes.
Significant cases include:
- UK Uncut Legal Action Limited v. HMRC & Goldman Sachs (won the right for campaign group UK Uncut to challenge a so called ‘sweetheart’ deal struck with Goldman Sachs by HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) in 2010)
- HMRC v Halcyon Films LLP [2010] EWCA Civ 261CA (relevant application of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 s.48 and s.42 and Finance Act 2002 s.101 for the purpose of tax relief)
- Micro Fusion 2004-1 LLP v HMRC [2010] EWCA Civ 260 CA (definition of the word 'film' for the purposes of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992 s.42)
- Thorpe v HMRC [2010] EWCA Civ 339 CA (tax liability of sole director in relation to unauthorised payments out of an exempt approved pension scheme)
- Grace v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] EWCA Civ 1082; [2009] STC 213; [2010] UKFTT (residence status of pilot employed by British Airways in the UK)
- Kuehne Nagel Drinks Logistics Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 379 [2010] UKUT (Newey J) [2012] EWCA Civ 34 (CA) (whether payments to transferring employees whose expectation of future pension benefits is extinguished on a TUPE transfer are taxable as emoluments from employment)
- ME v HMRC (2009) (costs order in favour of HMRC on withdrawal of appeal at door of tribunal)
- Hankinson v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 384; [2010] UKUT 361; [2011] EWCA Civ 1566 (discovery assessment in context of claim to be not resident or ordinarily resident in the UK for domestic and double taxation treaty purposes)
- Corbally-Stourton v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKSPC SPC00692 (validity of a discovery assessment in the context of a capital gains tax avoidance scheme intended to generate an allowable capital loss)
- Gaines-Cooper v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2008] STC 1665 (domicile and residence case involving an international business-man with homes in many places); Gaines-Cooper v Revenue and Customs [2007] EWHC 2617 (Ch); [2008] EWCA Civ 1502 (23 October 2008) (limits of an appeal on domicile); [2011] UKSC 47
- Barclays Bank PLC, Trustees of Barclays Bank PLC v HMRC [2007] EWCA Civ 442
CA (whether compensatory payments made when free tax advice scheme withdrawn are liable for tax) - Shepherd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2005] STC (SCD) 644, (residence)
- Hornby v Venables [2004] ICR 42, [2003] 1 WLR 3022, HL (the meaning of 'retirement' in exempt approved pension schemes)
- Langham v Veltema (CA) [2004] EWCA Civ 193, CA ('discovery' in self-assessment)
- Barrett (Inspector of Taxes) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd [2003] STC 1129, CA (categorization for tax purposes of profits under a reinsurance policy)
- R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex p Wilkinson [2003] 1 WLR 2683 [2003] 3 All ER 719 [2003] STC 1113, CA; [2005] EWHL (Extra Statutory Concessions and the Human Rights Act 1998)
Human Rights
Add to PortfolioPractice includes judicial review acting principally for public bodies
Significant cases include:
- R v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs ex p Davies & James [2011] UKSC 47; [2010] EWCA Civ 83; [2008] EWHC 1218 (Admin) (what is the taxpayer’s legitimate expectation in relation to HMRC Booklet IR20 dealing with non-residence)
- R v OFSTED and others ex p Sharon Shoesmith [2010] EWHC 852; [2011] EWCA (lawfulness of Joint Area Review carried out by OFSTED and Directions issued by Secretary of State in wake of Baby P murder)
- Eweida v British Airways Plc [2009] EWCA Civ 1025 (Protective Costs order in private proceedings)
- R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex p Wilkinson [2003] 1 WLR 2683 [2003] 3 All ER 719 [2003] STC 1113, CA; [2005] EWHL (sex discrimination in widow's bereavement allowance and its compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998) ECHR)
- Hobbs v United Kingdom (claim before ECHR of sex discrimination in widow's bereavement allowance and its compatibility with Arts 14 and 1 Protocol 1 ECHR)
- PM v United Kingdom (claim before ECHR of alleged Convention incompatibility of tax deductions for qualifying maintenance payments)
- R v A Special Commissioner ex p Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd [2003] 1 AC 563, HL (investigation powers and legal professional privilege)
- R v Inland Revenue Commissioner ex p Banque Internationale a Luxembourg SA [2000] STC 708, HC (investigation powers and the lawfulness of their exercise)
