Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Andrew’s focus is on insurance and reinsurance but he acts in a range of commercial contract matters, recently appearing in the Court of Appeal in Geo-Minerals GT v Downing [2023] EWCA Chiv 648.  He appeared in Allianz Insurance Plc v Tonicstar concerning the qualification of arbitrators for reinsurance disputes.  Andrew has wide experience in commercial litigation in the High Court and County Court as well as internationally - principally in the DIFC Courts - and arbitration.  He has also advised in telecommunications and energy claims, as well as business disputes and commercial contract claims.  He is advising on the construction of a substantial financial agency agreement and on the insurance and reinsurance issues arising from major injury claims under a PL policy.  

He advised about claims under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 in respect of the 2011 riots in London and other cities, drawing on his involvement in the Court of Appeal in Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable (Syndicate 386) [2009] Lloyd's Rep IR 607. He was invited to talk to senior claims managers on the topic at the Post Claims Club quarterly meeting. 

Andrew acted for the successful reinsured in the recent appeal against an arbitration award concerning an aggregation dispute relating to losses arising from 9/11 dust inhalation claims - Simmonds v Gammell [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 631.  He is acting for a leading insurer in reinsurance claims arising from major injury claims.  He acted in one of the lead cases in the Supreme Court in Employers' Liability Policy Trigger Litigation.  The test cases were about the coverage of Employers' Liability insurance policies in respect of damages for mesothelioma victims.  Andrew acted for the insured in a property insurance claim - Aviva Insurance v Brown about fraudulent means or devices and the definition of dishonesty.  

He specialises in contractual construction particularly of commercial documents, but advises on a wide range of national and international disputes, often arising out of the insurance sector or in connection with professional negligence. 

Insurance & Reinsurance

Andrew acts for a range of insurers in coverage disputes, aggregation and policy interpretation points.  His insurance practice is widely recognised and he acts for well-known city insurance firms – for insureds and insurers. He has recently advised or acted in cases involving Covid-19 claims, removal of building cladding following the Grenfell disaster and aggregation of professional negligence claims. 

He is an editor of The Law of Reinsurance with Colin Edelman KC.  Andrew represented successful insureds and their families in the Supreme Court in Employers' Liability Policy Trigger Litigation [2012] 1 WLR 867 about the coverage of Employers' Liability insurance policies in respect of damages for mesothelioma victims.  He appeared in Redman v Zurich Insurance Plc [2018] 1 WLR 280 concerning long-tail claims under the Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010. 

Andrew also acted for the insured in an insurance fraud case - Aviva Insurance v Brown [2012] Lloyd's Rep IR 211.   He is advising on the insurance and reinsurance issues arising from major injury claims under a PL policy. 

Andrew acted for the successful reinsured in the appeal against an arbitration award concerning an aggregation dispute relating to losses arising from 9/11 dust inhalation claims - Simmonds v Gammell [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 631.  He acted for a leading insurer in reinsurance claims arising from major injury claims.   Andrew appeared in the Court of Appeal in Allianz Insurance Plc v Tonic star Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 434 concerning the qualification of arbitrators for reinsurance disputes.  

In Horwood v Argos & Ors, Andrew acted in the insurance coverage dispute arising out of the 'Toxic Sofas' group litigation order.  He has acted for a UK insurer in a brokers' D&O claim and for a leading US professional indemnity insurer on a coverage claim in the Commercial Court.  He advised a large organisation on coverage of excess layer insurance policy in relation to a multi-million-pound liability for accidental damage arising out of its business. 

Andrew appeared in MJ Harrington v Axa Oyak Sigorta and in Tektrol v. International Ins Co of Hanover, an appeal on the construction of exclusion clauses in property insurance policies.  He also appeared in Countrywide v. Marshall on aggregation in insurance claims and in Jacobs v. Coster on late notification of insurance claims. 

Andrew has experience in advising insurers and claimants about claims under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 in respect of the 2011 riots in London and other cities, as he was in Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable (Syndicate 386). 

Employment

Andrew has appeared in some of the highest profile employment cases for the largest employers in the UK and internationally.  As well as collective claims and industrial relations, he has an established practice in executive whistleblowing claims appearing in Co-operative Group v Walker [2020], Harmeston v Co-operative Group, CEO v UK Tech firm and Wilkinson: a finance director whistleblowing claim.  In acts in discrimination cases (including Co-operative Group v Walker on equal pay, in Working Time case (such as Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Crawford and the leading case on shared parental leave discrimination - Capita v Ali).  He is one of the leading authorities on s.145B claims following Kostal v Dunkley and INEOS.  He appeared in Allen v TRW Systems on incorporation of a redundancy payment policy into contracts of employment in the Court of Appeal. 

He is one of the ‘go-to’ barristers for industrial action litigation and collective disputes which complements his busy injunction practice in relation to restrictive covenants, team moves and confidentiality claims recently appearing in Law by Design v Ali and Credico Marketing v Lambert. 

He succeeded in the Court of Appeal in Prophet plc v Huggett [2014] EWCA Civ 1013; [2014] IRLR 618 on the construction of restrictive covenants. Andrew is a co-author with Lord Justice Bean of Bean on Injunctions now in its 12th edition - one of the leading texts on the subject. 

He is instructed by a wide range of the best employment firms in London and nationally as well as having a substantial commercial practice. Andrew has long been a recognised expert on disability discrimination having appeared in the seminal case on the DDA 1995: Jones v Post Office. Over the last year, he has acted in TUPE consultation multiples, difficult multi-day discrimination cases for the NHS, banks and for city solicitors.  He also acts for claimants - and on behalf of a solicitor claimant against a 'magic circle' firm and in the widely reported Sitz v Oppenheimer claim - for the successful female trader against a merchant bank. He has been recommended by both Chambers UK and Legal 500 as a top employment barrister for many years.

Andrew has acted for major retailers in recognition disputes,  business transformation and individual executive claims, for a major energy company in a claim by a senior executive, for a developer in an unsuccessful whistleblowing claim by its former CEO, for Sodexo in mass collective consultation claims arising from the government’s closure of Covid testing and for a worldwide internet platform employer in developing its industrial relations strategy.

Industrial Relations

Andrew has developed a prominent practice in industrial action and trade dispute litigation, appearing in some of the leading cases of the last few years and advising parties to some of the highest profile trade disputes in the UK.  He has recently acted for many of the UK’s leading employers in relation to widespread 2022 and 2023 industrial action both in the public and private sector.  He appeared for the government in Sec of State for Health v RCN [2023] on the 6-month validity of strike ballots. He has acted for NHS employers, transport companies, logistics businesses, power companies, large construction projects, universities and aviation employers. 

He acted for Royal Mail recently and in 2017 in relation to national postal strikes (Royal Mail Group v CWU).  He appeared in the 2019 Birmingham bin workers’ strike case (Birmingham City Council v Unite the Union) and in the key strike case of Ryanair v BALPA. He has appeared in industrial relations matters for British Airways, bus companies, BT, Post Office, Fujitsu including wildcat action, picketing and transport blockades and in collective actions. 

He has experience in industrial action disputes, pay disputes following strikes and legal action to combat alternative 'leverage' action.  He has also advised a leading union about industrial action strategy. 

He also acts for large employers in relation to a series of collective consultation claims including major retailers.  He acted for BT in legal moves to prevent a threatened national strike and for transport companies in legal actions against strikes, for a large utilities company facing industrial action, for two leading logistics and delivery companies facing protest and strike action, for a chain of education academies, an airport ground handling company and a major high street name. 

Andrew appeared for the employers in ASLEF v London Midland and RMT v Serco Ltd [2011] ICR 848, the leading case on industrial action law.  Elias LJ took the opportunity to review and restate the law on strike ballots and notices.  

Andrew has been counsel for British Airways in various claims arising from the high-profile contractual dispute over changes to crewing levels on the airline: Malone v British Airways Plc [2011] ICR 125.  BA succeeded in the interim injunction hearing in 2009, at the speedy trial in February 2010 and in the Court of Appeal. 

Andrew appeared in EDF Energy Powerlink v RMT [2010] IRLR 114 getting an injunction from Blake J against a threatened strike on the London Underground on the basis that the RMT union had failed to give proper categories in its ballot notice.  

Andrew has frequently appeared in the Central Arbitration Committee and EAT on European Works Councils and recognition including Verizon European Works Council v Verizon Group, easyJet Plc v easyJet EWC, Olsten v Adecco Group EWC, Hinrichs v Oracle Corp and Lean v Manpower Group.

Restrictive Covenants & Injunctions

Andrew is a co-author of Injunctions with Sir David Bean one of the leading books in this field. 

Andrew appeared for the employees in restrictive covenant cases in Credico Marketing Ltd v Lambert [2021] EWHC 204 (QB) and Ali v Law by Design Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 778. 

As well as appearing for British Airways in the injunction claim up to and including the Court of Appeal in Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2011] ICR 125, Andrew has acted for a variety of leading employers in relation to restrictive covenant disputes including team moves. He appeared in World Fuel Services v Aegean Marine Petroleum in which Blair J granted a springboard injunction against a marine fuel company based on a breach of confidence. 

He succeeded in overturning the controversial decision in Prophet plc v Huggett [2014] EWCA Civ 1013.  The Court of Appeal held that a strict interpretation should be given to the construction of restrictive covenants in an expedited injunction claim. 

Andrew acted for the employer in a recent committal for contempt of court arising from breach of undertakings in a confidentiality and restrictive covenant injunction – Plant Health Care v Holohan.   

Andrew continues to be busy with a number of substantial restrictive covenant injunctions in the High Court, acting both for major businesses and for individuals.  He acted for leading patent attorneys in a confidentiality injunction claim and for an international engineering company restraining activity outside the UK, as a well as a mortgage broker moving to a new employer. He has acted in obtaining and resisting High Court freezing injunctions involving disputes over security for costs, fortification and non-disclosure issues as well as a number of confidentiality injunctions

Equality

Andrew has long been recognised as a leading expert in discrimination and was in some of the leading cases on the DDA 1995 including Jones v Post Office in the Court of Appeal and Ekpe v Comm of Metropolitan Police. 

He appeared in the Court of Appeal in Co-operative Group v Walker on equal pay, Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Crawford on working time, British Airways v Pinaud on part-time workers and the leading case on shared parental leave discrimination - Capita v Ali.   

He has acted for various retail and merchant banks in high value discrimination claims and various NHS Trusts in a number of high-profile discrimination and whistleblowing claims.  He acted for Zenith Bank in a race and religious discrimination claim and in the EAT.  He appeared for the successful claimant in Sitz v Oppenheimer Bank, a much-publicised sex discrimination and victimisation claim against a US finance firm, and a large religious discrimination claim against a US bank. He appeared for a solicitors’ firm in defending claims by its former senior partner. 

Andrew has acted in complex indirect discrimination and equal pay claims for clients such as British Airways and has successfully defended BT in a senior employee age discrimination claim.  He has also recently advised upon, and represented clients in, large multiple fixed term worker claims. 

Professional Negligence

Andrew acts for a range of insurers on professional negligence claims against lawyers, insurance brokers, surveyors, valuers and financial advisers. 

Andrew successfully defended a barrister in an unmeritorious, but complex, professional negligence claim concerning discrimination litigation - Begum v Neejam LLP which included allegations of settlement at an undervalue and issues such as the assessment of loss of a chance in respect of discrimination compensation.  He is also acting for solicitors in a claim by a high-profile former executive. 

He acted in a High Court claim by a former Premier League chief executive against a leading firm of solicitors. 

Andrew has acted for and against solicitors in solicitors’ negligence claims arising out of litigation and property transactions. He has been instructed on behalf of the BMIF to act for barristers (including a claim against a silk), particularly in employment disputes. Andrew has acted in professional indemnity disputes arising out of claims against architects, designers and engineers. 

Andrew has acted in London arbitrations in both commercial and employment cases, with particular experience in insurance and reinsurance arbitrations, but also in international arbitrations arising out of partnership, employment and commercial disputes.   

Andrew is presently acting in a number of confidential arbitrations arising out of Covid-19 insurance claims, aggregation of insurance claims and coverage disputes. 

He is available to sit as an arbitrator, drawing on his judicial experience as a Recorder and DHCJ.

Mediation

Andrew has acted in numerous mediations, including judicial mediations.  His collaborative style has led to numerous successfully mediated conclusions to complex disputes. 

Andrew has acted for a range of insurers and for many commercial city solicitors. He specialises in contractual construction particularly of commercial documents, but advises on a wide range of national and international disputes, often arising out of the insurance sector or in connection with professional negligence. 

Andrew also acts as a mediator in commercial and employment disputes and currently has a very strong record for settling disputes either during or soon after a mediation. He is frequently recommended as a mediator in large city employment disputes.  He recently successfully mediated a complex discrimination dispute between senior managers and a multinational company.  

Feedback from the parties on recent mediations includes: 

"I think he did a terrific job, with two parties who were at loggerheads.  He was calm, patient but firm which is everything you would want from a mediator and yet he made clear that he has clout as an experienced advocate in this subject area and therefore gave credibility to what he was saying." (City solicitor acting for the claimant in a complex High Court employment dispute).

Tax

David has been instructed in hundreds of tax appeals (FTT, UT, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) as well as many judicial reviews of HMRC decisions. He has also been involved in various associated proceedings including claims brought against directors (penalties and misfeasance/breach of duty) and disqualification proceedings (CDDA).

David’s experience includes many significant cases relating to VAT, Excise Duty and Customs Duty - ranging from customs classification appeals to approval revocation appeals to appeals against multi-million pound assessments. He has also dealt with countless cases in which fraud and/or abuse is alleged (MTIC/Kittel/Mecsec/Halifax/Fini/Ablessio). The cases he has been involved with have involved a variety of trade sectors including HMRC’s most recent focus – the labour supply and payroll sector (including where HMRC allege that the flat rate VAT scheme has been abused).

David also acts for directors in penalty appeals and/or where breach of duty/misfeasance proceedings are brought often involving allegations of negligence, recklessness or fraud.

Additionally, David has knowledge and experience of criminal law, so is well suited to cases where there are parallel civil/criminal proceedings.

David is a former editor of the Customs Duties chapter in De Voil Indirect Tax Service and has contributed numerous articles to De Voil Indirect Intelligence. He has been described in Chambers and Partners as having “a compendious knowledge of indirect tax law” and being “very experienced and knowledgeable on indirect tax matters”. In the Legal 500 David is said to “know VAT and excise better than any other junior barrister”.

Notable cases include:

CD v HMRC [2023] UKFTT: Acted for the taxpayer in this successful appeal against a denial of input tax and £15 million VAT assessment. The taxpayer was an employment intermediary that had purchased (and on-supplied) labour from thousands of mini-umbrella companies. HMRC subsequently denied the intermediary’s input tax under the Kittel and Fini principles. The appeal was listed for a 10-day hearing before the Tax Tribunal. On day 1, HMRC opened their case by setting out their detailed basis for applying the Kittel and Fini principles. On day 2, David opened the Appellant’s case. This included drawing on the extensive evidence filed on behalf of the Appellant and raising numerous other challenges to highlight the flaws in HMRC’s case. On day 3, HMRC applied for an adjournment. That application, which was opposed by the Appellant, was refused by the Tribunal. HMRC then announced in open court that they were withdrawing their Kittel/Fini decision and VAT assessment in full. The Tribunal then ordered HMRC to pay the Appellant’s costs. 

Bachra v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 91 (TC): Acted for the taxpayer in this successful appeal against a £1.2million Personal Liability Notice issued to the director of a company under paragraph 19 of Schedule 24 FA 2007. HMRC had denied a company input tax on the Kittel basis and issued it with penalties under Schedule 24 of the Finance Act 2007. HMRC had then issued Personal Liability Notices (in the amount of £1.2 million) to the director of the company on the basis that inaccuracies in the company’s vat returns were deliberate and attributable to the director.  David acted for the director and successfully argued that the inaccuracies were not deliberate. The FTT allowed the appeal and quashed the Personal Liability Notices in full.

Pavan Trading v HMRC: Acted for the taxpayer in this successful appeal against HMRC’s decision to refuse the right to zero-rate supplies made to customers in the United States on the basis that the Appellant did not hold sufficient evidence of export. HMRC issuing a corresponding assessment to output tax.  David successfully argued that the Appellant did have sufficient evidence of export and that HMRC had made multiple errors in their approach to the case. The FTT allowed the appeal in full.

AB v HMRC [2022] UKFTT: Acted for the taxpayer in this successful appeal against a £1.5million Personal Liability Notice issued to the director of a company under paragraph 19 of Schedule 24 FA 2007. HMRC alleged that the company has suppressed large volumes of sales and thereby under-declared its VAT liability. HMRC further alleged that the suppression and under-declaration was deliberate and attributable to the director. Following submission of written arguments, HMRC conceded that the appeal should be allowed.

Lynton Exports (Alsager) Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 224 (TC): Acted for the taxpayer in this successful appeal against a denial of input VAT (on the Kittel basis) and a denial of the right to zero-rate (on the Mecsek basis) in relation to purchases and sales of soft drinks and confectionery. As a result of these decisions, HMRC assessed the taxpayer for £9.8 million of VAT. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in full and discharged the assessments.

International (Plywood) Importers Ltd v HMRC: Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against C18 assessments issued because HMRC had formed the view that certain goods imported from Brazil should be classified as “plywood” rather than “shuttering” (to be used for concrete formwork).

YZ v HMRC: Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal relating to the correct customs duty classification of certain machine parts.

Hare Wines v HMRC [2022] UKFTT (TC): Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a decision refusing to grant registration under the AWRS. The Tribunal allowed the appeal finding the decision was one that could not reasonably have been arrived at.

Z Ltd v HMRC [2022]: Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a £1.2 million VAT assessment (raised on the Facet basis). After a multi-day hearing, HMRC conceded the case and the appeal was allowed in full.

PTGI v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 00020 (TC): Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a denial of £19 million of input VAT (on the Kittel basis) incurred on the purchase of telecommunication services/airtime. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in full.

Cantina Levorato v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 0461 (TC): Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against £1.3 million of excise duty assessments relating to duty suspended movements of wine (Italy to the UK).  The Tribunal allowed the appeal in full.

Ulster Metal Refiners v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 0286 (TC): Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a denial (on the Kittel basis) of input VAT incurred on purchases of soft drinks. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in relation to the vast majority of the denied input tax, finding that HMRC had not properly traced the transaction chains and had therefore not established a connection with fraud.

HMRC v Martyn Perfect: Acted for the taxpayer (in the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal and CJEU) in this case relating to the liability of “innocent agents” for unpaid excise duty.

R Ltd v HMRC [2021]: Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a penalty for alleged breach of the AWRS Regulations. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in full finding that there had been no such breach.

Casa Di Vini v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 0011 (TC): Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a decision refusing to grant registration under the AWRS. The Tribunal allowed the appeal finding the decision was one that could not reasonably have been arrived at.

Logfret v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 569: Acted for the taxpayer in the Court of Appeal in this case relating to the liability of a guarantor in respect of goods moved under duty suspension arrangements.

R (OAO JJ Management) v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 784: Acted for the Claimants in the Court of Appeal (and High Court) in this judicial review challenge to HMRC’s powers to conduct “informal investigations”.

HMRC v Smart Price [2019] EWCA Civ 841: Acted for the taxpayers in the Court of Appeal (and Upper Tribunal and FTT) in this case concerning the circumstances in which HMRC can be required to disclose all documents reviewed by the decision making officer (rather than simply the documents relied on).

OWD and Anr v HMRC [2019] UKSC 30: Acted for the traders in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in this case relating to the ability of HMRC to grant (or the High Court to order) a temporary approval to a trader pending an appeal to the FTT against a decision that would otherwise prohibit trading. Following this decision, the law was changed to introduce a statutory temporary approvals regime for certain trade sectors.

Ulster Metal Refiners v HMRC [2017] NICA 26: Acted for the taxpayer in this Court of Appeal case relating to HMRC’s pleading obligations. David was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland on a temporary basis specifically to deal with this case. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and referred the case back to the FTT for a rehearing.

Abbey Forwarding Ltd: Acted for Abbey and its directors in various aspects of this long running litigation (including the successful defence of the misfeasance claim brought against Abbey’s directors and the successful challenge to excise and VAT assessments raised against Abbey)

R (OAO) Millennium Cash and Carry v HMRC: Acted for the successful taxpayer in this judicial review of HMRC’s decision to detain in excess of £1m of trading stock.

Swanfield and QN Hotels v HMRC [2017] UKUT 88: Acted for QN Hotels in the Upper Tribunal. QN was successful in arguing that payments made to HMRC can be allocated to a current VAT period (even if that VAT period has not yet closed) which can greatly reduce the level of default penalties a taxpayer is liable for.

X Ltd v HMRC: Acted for HMRC in this VAT appeal about the correct treatment of pre-paid telephone calling cards.

HMRC v Asda Stores Ltd [2013] UKUT 223 (TCC): Acted for HMRC in this Upper Tribunal customs duty appeal concerning articles 29 and 32 of the Community Customs Code and valuation of imported goods.

GFT UK Retail Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 481 (TC): Acted for HMRC in this excise duty appeal about whether alcoholic spirits in ‘gel’ form are exempt from Article 27 of Directive 92/83/EEC.

HMRC v Roll Your Own Ltd: Acted for the taxpayer in this challenge to a seizure of tobacco and ‘rolling’ machinery worth in excess of £400,000. In issue was whether tobacco products produced by RYO were ‘smokeable’ such as to create a duty point.

Orlight Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 732 (TC): Acted for the taxpayer in this Customs duty appeal relating to the correct classification of LED light bulbs.

Ilford Cellular v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 435 (TC): Acted for HMRC in this VAT appeal against a denial of input tax on the basis that the relevant taxable supply was connected with MTIC fraud and the Appellant should have known of that connection.

Big Misters Shipping Co v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 790 (TC): Acted for HMRC in this appeal relating to import VAT and eligibility for Onward Supply Relief.

Opticare Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 266 (TC): Acted for HMRC in this VAT appeal concerning s26A VATA and disallowance of input tax where consideration not paid.

TL Smith Properties Ltd & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 528 (TC): Acted for HMRC in this VAT appeal relating to whether building works constituted an extension or enlargement of an existing building for the purposes of Group 5 of Schedule 8 of VATA.

R (OAO Seabrook Warehousing Ltd & Ors) v HM Revenue and Customs

[2010] EWCA Civ 140: Acted for the Claimants in this Judicial review of HMRC’s decision to abolish the WFE scheme in relation to alcohol export.

HMRC v Livewire Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 15 (Ch): Acted for HMRC in one of the first appeals concerning the Kittel test.

Administrative and Public Law

David’s public law work focuses on challenges to regulatory decisions (including HMRC, Data Protection and decisions by professional bodies/regulators).

David has also secured numerous injunctions/temporary approvals to allow businesses in the regulated sector to continue to operate pending the determination of associated statutory appeals.

Investigations

Between 2016 and 2021, David was instructed as the senior member of the counsel team assisting Clive Sheldon KC in the Independent Review into Sexual Abuse in Football.

David has been involved with investigations where concerns about misconduct, impropriety or other wrongdoing were in issue, as well as cultural/practice reviews. He is adept at interviewing witnesses and preparing accessible and user-friendly investigation reports.

Additional Information

As well as being admitted in England and Wales, David is admitted in the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Western Australia. In addition, he has experience of the American legal system having completed an LL.M in Virginia. David has also appeared before the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland (having been granted temporary admission).

David also holds appointments as a Judge of the Tax Tribunal and as a Recorder of the Crown Court.

Tax

Max Schofield is a specialist indirect tax barrister. His advice is regularly sought on disputes concerning VAT liability and exemptions, often involving novel products, and he has particular expertise in the food and drink sector, Remote Gaming Duty and Tax Tribunal procedure.

Having been instructed at the early stages of cases, Max has helped obtain successful outcomes for taxpayers whereby HMRC have withdrawn assessments and their opposition to appeals, avoiding the need for litigation.

Max was listed as a “Rising Star” in the 2022 Legal 500 directory. He is now ranked in the 2023 Legal 500 Directory as a “Leading Junior” in Tax: VAT and Excise (Tier 3), and in the Chambers UK 2023 Directory as “Up and Coming” in Tax: Indirect Tax.

Recent notable cases include:

• Walkers Snack Foods Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00031 (TC) – Acting for the taxpayer, a well-known snack food company, in an appeal concerning the Sensations Poppadoms range and their VAT liability under Excepted Item 5.

• Derby Quad v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 904 (TC) – Acting for the Revenue in an appeal concerning broadcast screenings of stage plays. Max successfully argued that the screenings did not fall under the Schedule 9 VAT exemption for admission to theatrical performances.

• Innate-Essence Ltd t/a The Turmeric Co v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 371 (TC) – Acting for the taxpayer, a company founded by Footballer Thomas Robson-Kanu, in an appeal concerning the VAT liability of turmeric and ginger shots. Max successfully argued that the products were zero-rated as liquid food consumed for the turmeric content, rather than beverages.

• Case C-695/20 Fenix International Ltd v HMRC [2023] - Acting for the taxpayer, a social media site known as OnlyFans, in the Court of Justice of the European Union. The reference on the validity of Article 9a of the VAT implementing regulation was heard before a Grand Chamber of 15 Judges with an Advocate General.  

• The CBD Flower Shop v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 107 (TC) - Acting for the taxpayer, successfully opposing an application by HMRC to amend their Statement of Case in an appeal concerning the application of the zero rate to novel food products.

• Cider of Sweden Limited v HMRC v Ernst & Young LLP [2022] UKFTT 76 (TC) - Acting for the taxpayer, successfully opposing an application by a non-party for access to pleadings and documents in the substantive appeal before the tax tribunal.

• Fenix International Ltd v HMRC [2020] UKFTT 499 (TC) - Acting for the taxpayer, an online social media platform, successfully obtaining a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the validity of a European Council Implementing Regulation on VAT, (See: Case C-695/20, heard before a Grand Chamber of the CJEU.)

• HMRC v The Core (Swindon) Ltd [2020] UKUT 0301 (TCC) - Acting for the taxpayer, successfully opposing HMRC’s appeal – whether the FTT erred in reaching its conclusion that Juice Cleanse Programmes should be zero-rated as supplies of food rather than standard rated as supplies of beverages.

Max was appointed to the Attorney General’s London C Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown for five years, starting 1st September 2021, allowing him to represent HMRC and the Insolvency Service.

Max is a co-editor of the Wolters Kluwer publication ‘A Handbook of EU VAT Legislation’ which offers biannual updates on VAT legislation and caselaw.

Tax

Aparajita welcomes instructions on behalf of both taxpayers and government, for litigation and advisory work. As pupil to Marika Lemos, she gained experience in all aspects of direct and indirect tax, in both contentious and non-contentious contexts.

She assisted on matters concerning loss relief in corporation tax, taxation of LLP profits, tax affairs of high-net-worth individuals, SDLT & contractor loan schemes, transfer of assets abroad, sideways loss relief, failure to correct penalties, VAT, and judicial review of HMRC decisions (particularly on the exercise of s.684(7A) ITEPA 2003 discretion).

Some key matters she assisted with and gained exposure to include the Court of Appeal decision in HMRC v Wilkes, and cases involving a Forbes’ World’s Top Management Consulting Firm, and a Fortune Global 500 company.

Employment

Aparajita welcomes instructions on behalf of employer and employees, for both litigation and advisory work.

As pupil to Talia Barsam, she gained extensive experience in high value discrimination, unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and complex pay disputes. She provided assistance on drafting particulars of claims, grounds of resistance, skeleton arguments, and research notes in matters involving multinational corporations in the technology, airline, entertainment, finance, and oil and gas sectors. She assisted on M Ithia v MUFG Securities EMEA plc, and provided research and drafting assistance to several members of chambers with skeleton arguments for preliminary hearings dealing with strike out, deposit orders, and time limits.

Personal Injury

Aparajita welcomes instructions in personal injury and clinical negligence work.

As pupil to Jonathan Butters, Aparajita was exposed to all aspects of personal injury law, in both litigation and advisory contexts. She gained experience in catastrophic injury, road traffic accident, clinical negligence, and employer’s liability matters, for which she did a range of work from drafting particulars of claims and schedules of loss, to writing advice.

Notably, Aparajita provided assistance to Rob Weir KC in three UK Supreme Court appeals: Griffiths v TUI (on uncontroverted expert evidence), McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board (on doctors’ duties to discuss alternative treatment with patients), and Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (on secondary victim claims for psychiatric injuries).

Employment

As a pupil to Talia Barsam and Jesse Crozier, Alice gained extensive litigation and advisory experience, including in high value discrimination, unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims.

Alice has provided research and drafting support in the following matters:

• A variety of preliminary hearings, including for strike out, time limits and privacy orders;
• Grounds of resistance in discrimination, unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims;
• Assisting Jesse Crozier in advising a large employer on obtaining injunctive relief to prevent proposed strike action;
• Assisting Alice Mayhew KC on drafting a complex schedule of loss for group litigation in the High Court concerning Permanent Health Insurance;
• Drafting and research support in an EAT appeal concerning the justification test for the purposes of the Part-Time Worker (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000;
• Drafting and research support in the EAT case Mallon v AECOM Ltd [2023] EAT 104, concerning the knowledge of disadvantage test in the context of disability discrimination;
• Drafting and research support to Marianne Tutin in an equal pay case concerning the scope of the sex equality clause provisions in the Equality Act 2010.

During her time in the Court of Appeal, Alice drafted the bench memorandum for PGMOL v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 1370, which went on to become the first case concerning the test of employee status to be heard by the Supreme Court since Autoclenz v Belcher.

Alice is a member of the Employment Lawyers Association and the Employment Law Bar Association.

Personal Injury

As a pupil to Stephen Cottrell, Alice gained significant litigation and advisory experience in a wide range of road traffic accident, catastrophic injury, clinical negligence, fatal accident, travel and employer’s liability matters. She has experience in drafting pleadings and schedules of loss in high value claims.

She provided research assistance for the Supreme Court case of Griffiths v TUI regarding expert evidence and the duty to cross-examine.

During her time in the High Court, Alice assisted on clinical negligence cases raising complex issues of medical causation, as well as high-value personal injury matters.

Alice is a member of the Personal Injury Bar Association.

Tax

As a pupil to Aparna Nathan KC, Alice gained a wide range of tax advisory and litigation experience.

She provided research assistance in the Supreme Court in SSE Generation Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKSC 17, concerning whether parts of a hydroelectric power scheme qualified for capital allowances. She also provided research support in Murphy and Linnett v HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 497, concerning the interpretation of extra-statutory concessions.

Alice also gained experience of advisory work on behalf of both taxpayers and the revenue, including issues of: discovery assessments, residence and domicile, IHT/CGT/income tax liability under trusts, the TOAA provisions, the GAAR and Ramsay challenges.

During her time in the Court of Appeal, Alice assisted on the following tax appeals:

• News Corp UK Ltd v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 91: whether digital issues of newspapers were zero rated as “newspapers” for VAT purposes, involving consideration of the relationship between the “always speaking” and “strict interpretation” principles;
• Target Group Ltd v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 1043: whether outsourced loan administration services were standard rated supplies for VAT purposes;
• Eynsham Cricket Club v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 225: whether a Community Amateur Sports Club is a charity for VAT purposes;
• PGMOL v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 1370: concerning the tax treatment and employment status of football referees.

Arbitrator

David’s experience in arbitrations means that he is well placed to sit as an arbitrator in domestic and international matters. He has been on the CIArb Panel of Sports Arbitrators and was appointed as an ACAS arbitrator in 2007. Before becoming a Circuit Judge he was a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

Investigations

With his wide-ranging experience at the Bar and as a Judge, David is well-placed to conduct internal investigations in seeking to resolve disputes outside the formal court or tribunal structure.

Tax

Howard has a significant tax practice, with an emphasis on indirect tax, VAT, and excise and other customs duties. He is regularly instructed in the Tax Tribunals and Administrative Court.

Howard’s advisory and litigation experience includes appearing in VAT cases involving: treatment of charities, zero rating of construction supplies on major developments, food zero rating, aircraft parts, partial exemptions special methods, bespoke retail schemes, invalid invoices, time of supply, apportionment, agency, evidence of supply, compliance with export/dispatch requirements, MTIC and supply chain fraud, penalties, personal liability notices, default surcharges, legitimate expectation, the impact of human rights on tax litigation and costs orders.

Howard has regularly appeared in cases involving excise duties arising from failure to follow customs procedures and customs powers, AWRS and WOWGR approvals, anti-dumping and countervailing duties, onward supply relief and cases involving allegations of diversion and other excise fraud.

Notable cases:

• Pfizer Consumer Healthcare [2020] EUECJ C-182/19 – CJEU case on invalidity of EC regulation on tariff classification.
• Munir v Revenue and Customs [2021] EWCA Civ 799 – the leading case on presumptions resulting from criminal convictions in civil excise duty cases.
• Eynsham Cricket Club v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2021] EWCA Civ 225 – Case brought following HMRC’s ruling that construction of a new cricket pavilion could not be zero-rated for VAT because, as a community amateur sports club, ECC could not benefit from the VAT relief provided specifically for charities.
• United Grand Lodge of England v Revenue & Customs [2021] UKFTT 308 – VAT on subscriptions by Freemasons.
• WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc v Revenue and Customs [2021] UKFTT 106 (TC) – a food zero-rating case in relation to Nakd and Organix Bars brought by a national supermarket.
• Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v Revenue & Customs [2021] UKFTT 71 (TC) – VAT on supplies of car parking by NHS trusts.
• Revenue and Customs v Muhammed Hafeez Katib [2019] UKUT 189 (TCC) – attribution of fault of representative to appellant.
• Drummond v Revenue and Customs [2016] UKUT 221 (TCC) - The leading case on protective costs orders in the Tax Tribunals.
• HMRC v Ebuyer & Citibank, Fonecomp [2015] EWCA Civ 39 and Davis and Dann Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 142 – Acted in the three civil Missing Trader Intra Community fraud cases to have reached the Court of Appeal in recent years.
• HMRC v X - High-profile direct and indirect tax case arising out of a COP9 procedure.
• HMRC v H - case concerning one of the largest Personal Liability Notices ever issued to a company director.

Business Crime

Howard specialises in advisory and advocacy work in civil and criminal fraud cases, and those involving other allegations of financial wrongdoing and ancillary proceedings. Howard’s practice has ranged from advising individuals to prosecuting and defending high value frauds in the Crown Court.

Howard has particular expertise in significant and complex matters concerning fraud and other wrongdoing associated with VAT, excise and other customs duties.

Howard also advises on and is instructed in cases concerning regulatory compliance, particularly in relation to the Money Laundering Regulations and anti-bribery and corruption legislation.

Notable cases:

• Operation Bude (2021) – FCA prosecution for market offences under FSMA and false accounting in relation to misstatements by an AIM listed company.
• SFO v Petrofac (2021) – SFO prosecution for Bribery Act offences in the international oil sector.
• HMRC v Malde [2021] EWHC 100 (Ch) – committal application and associated disclosure application arising from a freezing order made in aid of the Tax Tribunal.
• The Official Receiver v Duckett [2020] EWHC 3016 (Ch) – director’s disqualification proceedings arising out of alleged MTIC fraud.
• Tower Bridge GP Limited v Revenue and Customs [2021] UKUT 30 (TCC) – multi-million pound carbon credit VAT fraud involving transactions with an international investment bank.
• HMRC v CFB - complex £3 million VAT fraud in the metal recycling industry.
• Operation Honda - a conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud involving a mortgage broker, conveyancer and other professionals.
• HMRC v GT - multi-million pound alcohol diversion fraud.
• R v A – allegations made against a director of a claims handling company alleged to have been at the centre of one of the largest “cash for crash” conspiracies in the north east of England with ancillary judicial review proceedings arising out of unlawfully procured and issued search warrants and unlawful arrests.

Health & Safety

Howard’s experience includes:

• Consumer protection
• Trademark and copyright infringement
• Compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations and compliance with Charity Commission requirements
• Food hygiene
• Trading standards

Notable cases include:

• LBHF v HS2 Ltd – complaint by HS2 against a statutory demolition notice.
• R v SP - employee alleged to have a caused a release of asbestos in a retail premises during the course of his work.
• R v R & R - instructed in the first prosecution of an HMO licence holder and manager for breaches of the HMO Regulations. This case involved complex arguments on the interpretation of the Regulations which had not previously been before a court.
• R v HQPEL – concerning breaches of environmental permit conditions by a multi-national concrete company.
• R v CBL – concerning breaches of regulations in relation to advertisements by a basement conversion company.
• R v JS – breaches of planning enforcement notices against a developer.

Regulatory & Professional Discipline

Howard also accepts instructions in Professional Discipline & Regulatory cases. Having acted as disclosure counsel for the FRC in a case involving allegations against an accountant within an AIM listed plc which was involved in a share ramping scheme, Howard has a good insight into the investigative process.

Personal Injury

Christopher undertakes all aspects of personal injury work on behalf of both Claimants and Defendants in high value cases. He has been recognised for his particular specialism in catastrophic injury cases where individuals have suffered life changing injuries.

Noted for his hugely persuasive style in both written and oral advocacy, he is typically engaged in claims involving spinal injury, brain damage, soft tissue & orthopaedic injury leading to amputation, psychiatric damage, and fatal accidents. He is instructed in employers’ liability claims (including industrial disease and stress at work), road traffic accident claims, and public liability claims.

Sample of litigation in 2020/21, recently concluded or ongoing (both Claimant & Defendant):

Road Traffic Accidents

• Re XAH – 19 year old male suffered severe brain injury when struck while standing beside car. Lump sum award of £12.5 million approved. Led by Christopher Melton QC;
• Re H – 29 year old female pedestrian struck by car suffered C7 tetraplegia, motor complete. Lump sum settlement of £12.5 million. Led by Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC;
• W v L – 56 year-old motorcyclist suffers C3 incomplete paraplegia following accident. Lump sum of £4.17 million with PPOs of £395,000 & reverse indemnities;
• W v T - 48-year-old motorcyclist suffered paraplegia following accident.  Contributory negligence in play.  Damages of £4.5 million;
• M v S - Below knee amputation following accident to 50-year-old motorcyclist.  Damages of £2 million;
• Re P - 28-year-old motorcyclist with significant lower limb injuries.  Salvage surgery of little benefit.  Through knee amputation anticipated at some point.  Damages of £1.58 million;
• AB v EFG - Significant brain injury to 55-year-old cyclist knocked off his bike at a roundabout. Was not wearing a cycle helmet.  Damages of £1.56 million;
• P v M - Significant lower limb injury to 24-year-old motorcyclist.  Damages of £958,000;
• ABC v GHI - Claimant passenger suffered significant brain damage in car driven into a tree by driver, the latter dying.  Both parties intoxicated and alleged to have conspired to buy drugs.  Ex turpi causa defence advanced.  Led on liability issue by Stephen Grime, QC.  Damages of £750,000;
• H v A - Significant spinal and other orthopaedic injuries to 28-year-old motorcyclist.  Liability apportioned.  Loss of career in RAF.  Damages of £750,000;
• M v P - Collision as Defendant motorist drifted across into Claimant’s carriageway.  Defendant died following subarachnoid haemorrhage.  Issue as to whether it was spontaneous, pre collision, or post traumatic.  Automatism defence.  Claimant suffers significant lower limb injury.  Damages £650,000;
• Re SMRW – 34 year old female killed in rta. Damages £650,000;
• C v F - Female pedestrian, at outset of acting career, suffered serious orthopaedic injury and facial scarring.  Atypical career progression analysis.  Damages of £320,000.

Accident at work

• Grenfell Fire - Personal injury claims of senior fire officers (ongoing);
• P v MJL - Labourer on construction site lost control of petrol-powered saw.  Trans humeral amputation followed. Liability disputed. Settled for £3 million;
• VW v Royal Mail - Brain injury following accident at work.  Short life expectation.  Damages of £757,000;
• E v S – 62 year old struck by falling acrow prop, suffering brain injury the extent of which was disputed. Fundamental dishonesty alleged. Settlement approved of £400,000 following 25% reduction for contributory negligence;
• Re: MM - Suicide resulting from stress at work.  Liability disputed.  Damages of £250,000;
• M v Boots - Electrocution injury leading to vestibular disturbance.  Fundamental dishonesty alleged.  To be listed for trial.

Public liability

• GG v CC - 68-year-old with advanced Parkinson’s disease fell from parapet wall outside property, suffering spinal injury.  Liability disputed. When discharged from hospital, C was paraplegic.  Short life expectation.  Damages of £425,000.

Reported cases include:

• Ovu v London Underground Ltd [2021] EWHC 2733 – Claimant alighted from night tube and walked into a non-public area of the station. Fell from external staircase to his death - duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts of 1957 & 1984;
• Higgs v. Pickles [2011] PIQR P15 - Application of Ogden tables;
• Johnson v. Chesterfield & Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust [22.05.09, High Court] - Interim payments;
• White v. Lidl UK [2005] EWHC 871 - On definition of a “secondary victim”;
• Carruthers v. MP Fireworks [2007] Lawtel AC0112670 - Control of expert evidence;
• Chambers v. Excel Logistics [2006] EWCA 1031 - Acceleration periods & approaches to calculation of future loss of earnings’ claim.

Human Rights

Alongside Christopher's personal injury practice he has gained a depth of experience of litigation with a focus on some particularly thorny civil liberties issues and human rights breaches. Examples of his work include:

• Fatal accident and severe personal claims pursued by Tanzanian nationals following shooting and other incidents in an open-pit gold mine by local security/police officers;
• A personal injury claim made on behalf of a middle-aged female following the acquisition of a profound hypoglycaemic brain injury while detained in police custody;
• Watson Woodhouse (a firm) v. The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police - Settlement of £550,000 following admitted false imprisonment of a leading criminal defence solicitor and an unlawful search of his premises and those of his firm;
• Settlement of fatal accident claims arising from death of a detainee in police custody from a drugs’ overdose.

Coroners & Inquests

Christopher has extensive experience of representing interested parties in jury and coroner only inquest hearings. He is often instructed to appear in workplace health & safety inquests where employees have suffered a fatal fall or otherwise injured whilst operating machinery. Sample of inquests with juries:

• Re: Bernard Ovu (2017) – Mr Ovu died as he fell down an emergency exit staircase at Canning Town tube station. Consideration of issues relating to lone working staff and action to be taken by LUL when members of the public access non-public areas;
• Re: Adam Withers (2016) – death of detained patient diagnosed with acute and transient psychosis who climbed onto conservatory roof of Epsom Hospital and thence onto industrial chimney from which he fell. Consideration of hospital’s failure to assess absconding risks of vulnerable and psychiatric patients.  Subsequent prosecution of hospital;
• Re: Shaun Maslin (2014) – death of Mr Maslin, a sub-contractor, in an explosion while pressure testing a gas main near Staines. Subsequent Regulation 28 report advising as to need for national minimum requirements for operatives within the gas industry for pressure testing.

Employment

Tom welcomes instructions on behalf of employees and employers.

Tom has appeared as sole counsel for a former employee in the High Court in proceedings regarding the enforceability of a restrictive covenant. Tom regularly appears on his own in multi-day employment tribunal hearings in unfair dismissal and discrimination claims, as well as appearing in preliminary hearings across the full range of employment law. He also advises in all areas of employment law.

Recent highlights include:

• Patricot v Adrian Lee & Partners [2023] EWHC 2493 (Ch) – Representing a former employee in the High Court in the hearing of an application for an expedited trial of his claim regarding the enforceability of a non-compete clause.
• Successfully representing a tech start-up in the two-day final hearing of a redundancy unfair dismissal claim (2023).
• Successfully representing a hotel chain in the final hearing of an unfair dismissal claim (2023).
• Successfully defending a catering services provider in a two-day hearing of a constructive dismissal claim brought by a former employee (2023).
• Successfully defending a tech start-up against a former employee’s claims for unpaid bonus and on-call allowances (2023).
• Securing the strike-out of an employee’s claims of race discrimination against his former employer, a restaurant business (2023).
• Successfully defending a major retailer in a week-long hearing of a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination (2022).
• Representing a former employee of a major airline in a three-day hearing of his unfair dismissal claim (2022).

As a solicitor Tom advised clients on a range of issues, from employment status to the National Minimum Wage to TUPE transfers. He undertook secondments to the in-house legal teams of Novartis AG in Basel (in 2015) and Uber in London (in 2017-18), where he assisted with large international transactions and day-to-day employment issues.

During his time at the Supreme Court, Tom assisted Lord Wilson on the leading cases of Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 (concerning whistleblowing dismissal) and Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake [2021] UKSC 8 (concerning the National Minimum Wage).

Tom is a member of the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) and the Employment Law Bar Association (ELBA).

Personal Injury

Tom is developing a busy personal injury practice. He has recently worked on the following matters as a junior to Robert Weir KC: - appearing (led also by Stephen Cottrell) in the Supreme Court in Griffiths v TUI [2023] UKSC 48 regarding fairness, expert evidence and the duty to cross-examine (reported in the national media here, here and here);

• drafting schedules of loss for claimants with four limb cerebral palsy in two separate, multi-million-pound claims;
• drafting a schedule of loss for a claimant with severe injuries following a road traffic accident; and
• providing research and other assistance in the Supreme Court appeal in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board [2023] UKSC 26 regarding informed consent and the doctor’s duty to disclose “reasonable alternative treatments”.

Tom has appeared in numerous fast-track trials in RTAs, employers’ liability and occupiers’ liability claims, representing both claimants and defendants. Tom is also comfortable representing clients in CCMCs.

Tom is a member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) and the Personal Injuries Bar Association (PIBA).

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Tom welcomes instructions in all areas of commercial litigation.

Recent highlights include:

• Representing consumers in Plevin claims regarding undisclosed PPI commission.
• Representing a major energy company in a range of breach of contract claims brought by consumers.

Tax

Tom welcomes instructions on behalf of both taxpayers and The Revenue.

Recent matters include:

• acting for The Revenue (led by Chris Stone) in two large ongoing appeals concerning enterprise investment scheme relief under the Income Tax Act 2007;
• acting for The Revenue (led by Marika Lemos) in Sheth v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 368 (TC), a case concerning contractor loan schemes, the Rangers case and the validity of discovery assessments.

Employment

Matthew practises in all areas of employment law. He has experience of a wide spectrum of respondent and claimant work in the employment tribunals and the civil courts. This work has ranged from representing large multinational companies to individual claimants and includes both court advocacy and advisory work on complex legal questions. He has particular experience of contractual disputes, discrimination, unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and employee status.

Recent case highlights include:

• Newlyn-Jones v Herongrange Direct Manpower Ltd & Ors [2023]. Represented the Claimant in a two day hearing successfully establishing age discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal by reason of a TUPE transfer. The tribunal awarded over £130,000 in compensation. This is more than double the value of the highest age discrimination award in the UK last year.
• Perera v Stonegate Pub Company Ltd [2023]. Represented the Respondent in a five day hearing successfully resisting claims of race and religious discrimination and limiting a claim for unlawful deduction from wages to a nominal amount.
• Macdonald v Milton Keynes Development Partnership LLP [2023]. Represented the Respondent in a seven day hearing successfully resisting claims of whistleblowing dismissal and detriments. Led by Andrew Burns KC.
• Amedzo v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd [2022]. Represented the Respondent in a two day hearing successfully resisting a claim of constructive unfair dismissal.
• Mallon v Blacktrace Holdings Ltd & Ors [2022]. Represented the First Respondent in a three day hearing successfully resisting a claim of disability discrimination.
• X v An Airline Company [2022]. Represented the Claimant bringing claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages. Successfully settled the matter on favourable terms prior to a full hearing.

Matthew also has experience of assisting senior members of chambers in respect of a variety of employment matters. This includes:

• Providing research support to Andrew Burns KC in respect of industrial relations disputes.
• Assisting Bruce Carr KC in respect of the independent review into the Royal College of Nursing.
• Assisting Jesse Crozier in responding to claims of age discrimination, whistleblowing detriments and fixed term employee detriments in the employment tribunal and breach of contract in the High Court.
• Assisting Kate Balmer in an internal investigation into allegations of discrimination and whistleblowing detriments at a large multinational bank.

Matthew has a particular interest in religion and belief discrimination. He recently represented a junior doctor in a successful appeal against his dismissal due to his conscientious objection to the provision of certain treatments founded on his religious beliefs.

Tax

Matthew acts for both taxpayers and HMRC. He has experience of litigation in the tribunals and advisory work. As a tax and employment practitioner, he is particularly well positioned to advise on issues which clients may face in respect of IR35.

Recent highlights include:

• Magic Carpets Commercial Ltd v HMRC [2023]. Instructed by the Revenue in an appeal concerning careless behaviour and the validity of determinations and penalties. Led by Sadiya Choudhury.
• Janet Bray Ltd v HMRC [2023]. Instructed by the Revenue in an appeal concerning careless behaviour and the validity of determinations and penalties. Led by Marika Lemos.
• Junior to Akash Nawbatt KC and Kate Balmer in an appeal relating to company residence for corporation tax purposes.
• Junior to Marika Lemos in an appeal relating to the availability of sideways loss relief in respect of farming activities.
• Advising a healthcare trust on whether a senior employee was entitled to an exemption from income tax on the basis of a change in that employee’s residence.
• Whispering Smith v HMRC [2022]. Successfully resisted an appeal against two penalties for failure to take corrective action in response to a follower notice. Led by Marika Lemos.
• Callen v HMRC [2022]. Successfully established the validity of a discovery assessment due to carelessness by a tax adviser acting on behalf of the taxpayer. Led by Christopher Stone.

Matthew also has experience of assisting senior members of chambers in respect of a variety of tax matters. This includes:

• Assisting Timothy Brennan KC and Aparna Nathan KC in an appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the corporation tax treatment of various components of a hydroelectric power generation scheme.
• Assisting Marika Lemos in advising on the availability of sideways loss relief in respect of farming activities.

Matthew has given a talk on the enforcement of foreign taxes in the United Kingdom as part of the Devereux Chambers Elevenses Webinar series (click here to watch).

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Matthew welcomes instructions in all areas of commercial litigation.

Recent highlights include:

• Representing a large multinational company successfully resisting claims brought by a former client for breach of contract and disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
• Representing a claimant bringing claims of bribery and an unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in respect of secret commissions taken by a third party.
• Representing a law firm resisting a claim for breach of contract turning on the construction of an agreement for the provision of recruitment services.
• Advising debtors on potential claims against a large multinational bank for breach of contract, misrepresentation and an unfair relationship arising out of a credit agreement.
• Representing a major energy company resisting a claim for breach of contract involving implied terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
• Representing debtors alleging an unfair relationship with banks in respect of undisclosed commissions.

Personal Injury

Matthew regularly appears in fast track trials. He has experience of road traffic accidents involving vulnerable road users.

Recent highlights include:

• Instructed to represent a family on a multi-day inquest into the occurrence of a road traffic accident involving the deceased.
• Advising on quantum in respect of a number of claims involving injuries to young children.
• Representing multiple occupants of a vehicle in a high value fast track claim with the identity of the defendant driver in dispute.
• Instructed to represent a family on a multi-day inquest into potential failures to properly care for the deceased.
• Representing a motorcyclist struck by a motorist whilst filtering through traffic.

Tax

Joshua is a specialist in direct and indirect tax litigation both for taxpayers and HMRC. He gives pragmatic advice and is highly regarded for his advocacy skills. Joshua regularly appears on his own, leading other barristers and is occasionally led, in the First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and High Court. He is particularly sought after in judicial review Claims, as well as tax appeals and investigations where HMRC suspect criminal activity.

Prior to private practice at the Bar, Joshua was a member of the HMRC VAT Litigation Team. He has appeared in the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) on a variety of issues and was the lead lawyer for HMRC in London in respect of a significant number of Missing Trader Intra-Community Tax (MTIC) cases. Cumulatively, Joshua has defended in excess of £650 million worth of VAT in litigation on behalf of HMRC. He is also very experienced in matters involving the use of Schedule 36 Finance Act 2008 powers by Revenue and Customs officers as well as issues involving HMRC’s use of Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 penalties, Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009 and s63 Value Added Tax Act 1994 misdeclaration penalties.

He is a leading barrister in respect of tax penalties having been instructed in the three lead authorities relating to the test to be applied for “reasonable excuse”, the impact of proportionality on penalties, and what might amount to “special circumstances”. More recently Joshua has been instructed in direct tax cases arising out of damages settlements and the tax treatment of such sums of money (i.e. are they emoluments from employment).

Some example of the types of work that he has been instructed in include:

• AWRS and WOWGR refusal decisions
• Excise assessments/Customs Duties and penalties
• VAT registration appeals (including deregistration on the basis of abuse of the VAT system)
• VAT assessments and associated penalties
• Denials of input tax on the Kittel basis
• Earnings appeals (including termination payments)
• Self-assessment penalties
• Top slicing relief
• National Insurance contributions
• Avoidance litigation (including DOTAS, s74A – D Income Tax Act 2007 and Ramsay abuse)
• COP8 and 9 investigations
• Damages litigation in the High Court arising out of alleged Revenue officer’s negligent performance of their duties

Off-payroll working (IR35)

Joshua accepts instructions in IR35 matters for both HMRC and the taxpayer.

His most recent matters relate to the tax treatment of the earnings of two sports broadcasters and their production company.

Joshua has extensive experience in Commercial Litigation, including during his practice as a solicitor in Australia.

Amongst his notable instructions are an international joint venture dispute for one of the leading mining companies in the world and a $8m AUD (£4.6m) breach of contract case where the allegation was, amongst other things, that there were breaches of an implied term of the contract and whether the damages that were claimed were too remote.

More recently he has been engaged in actions arising out of claims of misfeasance in public office, as well as breach of contract. He has also been sought out to give advice about fraudulent and negligent misstatement claims involving a company with a £200M annual turnover.

Business Crime

Joshua’s white collar criminal practice encompasses financial crime, criminal tax, and proceeds of crime matters (including account/cash freezing orders and account/cash forfeiture orders).

He has been separately instructed to defend alleged frauds on both the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office where there were millions of pounds said to have been defrauded.

He accepted instructions in a money laundering matter where the Defendant was accused of converting criminal property. He also recently successfully defended an accountant who was alleged to have conspired to defraud the revenue of over a million pounds of corporation tax.

He brings experience as an accomplished tax practitioner to the criminal sphere to aid his clients. He is often called on to deploy his tax experience to counter allegations made by the Crown that someone has evaded VAT or somehow cheated the revenue. As part of his robust defence of his clients in tax cases he has been able to raise arguments about the manner in which VAT assessments have been made, both in terms of time limits within which they ought to have been made and the value of the assessments. This often includes advising at the investigative stages where HMRC have opened an enquiry, or are considering whether to make a VAT assessment/deregister a trader.

Notable cases

Court of Appeal

• The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs -v- Ian Charles t/a Boston Computer Group Europe [2019] EWCA Civ 2176 (Lewison LJ, Newey and Asplin LJJ) The Revenue successfully appealed against a refusal to strike out a Claim in the Queen’s Bench Division where it was originally held by a High Court Judge that a narrow duty of care may exist on the Revenue to verify the factual accuracy of both its own evidence and its opponents evidence because a taxpayer was exercising a statutory right of appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Appeal and opined that there was clearly no such duty of care that could arise in adversarial litigation between parties, even where one of the parties was a statutory authority.
• The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs -v- Keith Murphy (to be listed). The Revenue have successfully sought permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal’s decision as to whether the word “profit” in ss62(2)(b) of ITEPA should be given a fiscal interpretation (i.e. net or gross profit), or whether it should be viewed as a benefit. The underlying dispute relates to whether a decision by the taxpayer to enter into a Damages Based Agreement which required a sum of money to be paid away to discharge a success fee should be subject to tax, or whether the sum of money was taxable after exclusion of the money paid away to discharge a success fee. Joshua is leading Colm Kelly in this Appeal.
• Tower Bridge GP Ltd -v- Revenue and Customs Commissioners (listed to be heard in July 2022). The taxpayer has been granted permission to appeal against the Upper Tribunal’s decision. Key issuers in the appeal are whether input tax can be reclaimed on an invoice that did not have the requisite information on it pursuant to Regulations 13 and 14 of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995.

High Court (Reported decisions)

• R (On the Application of Ingenious Construction Ltd) -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2020] EWHC 2255 (Admin) (per Sir Ross Cranston) which was a case about interim relief and whether a challenge to a deregistration decision (i.e. deregister from VAT) was challengeable in the High Court. The Court concluded that the proper forum was the tax tribunal, and an interim injunction should be refused pending something akin to an “abuse of power, impropriety or unfairness”.
• R (On the Application of Martin William Clayton) -v- Crown Court sitting at Maidstone and Director of Border Force [2020] 4 WLR 141 (Admin) (per Mr Justice Kerr) which was a case about the proper interpretation of “gift” and “money’s worth” within the meaning of Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010.
• Panorama Cash & Carry Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2020] EWHC 1808 (Ch) (per Chief Master Marsh) which was a case in which the Claimant alleged misfeasance in public office against the Revenue as well as a breach of Community Law. The High Court struck out the Claim.
• R (On the Application of Thames Wines Limited) -v- HM Revenue and Customs [2017] EWHC 452 (Admin) which was a case about whether HMRC could deregister a taxable person in the absence of domestic authority.

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

• Keith Murphy -v- Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] UKUT 152 (TCC) (per Green J and UTJ Greenbank) The Appellant sued the Met Police for unpaid earnings. He entered a damages based agreement to bring the Claim with his lawyers. The claim settled and a settlement agreement entered into which triggered a success fee being paid to his lawyers. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the unpaid earnings should be taxed on the basis of the full amount (i.e. settlement sum including the success fee) or the reduced amount (i.e. the money paid to the lawyers by way of success fee). The Upper Tribunal has granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• Tower Bridge GP Ltd -v- Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] UKUT 30 (TCC) (per Fancourt J and UTJ Herrington) The Appellant alleged that the substantive conditions for the deduction of input tax had been met which permitted the denial of input tax from their output tax. It was said that once the substantive conditions had been met the formal conditions (i.e. valid VAT number) were irrelevant. The Upper Tribunal rejected this. Permission to appeal had been granted to the Court of Appeal.
• Nicholas and Charlotte Sandham t/a/ Premier Metals Leeds [2020] UKUT 193 (TCC) (Miles J and UTJ Richards) The Appellants claimed that the Kittel principle did not apply to a partnership where a dishonest agent was carrying out the transactions. It was suggested that because a partnership is comprised of natural persons, if they did not know or have the means of knowing of knowing then dishonest knowledge of an agent could not be attributed to them. The Upper Tribunal rejected this on the basis that the ordinarily principles of agency applied so as to make a principal liable.
• Revenue and Customs Commissioners v. Nigel Rogers and Craig Shaw [2019] UKUT 0406 (TCC) (per Zacaroli J and UTJ Richards) This was a successful appeal by HMRC against an FTT decision on the papers in relation to late filing penalties. HMRC appealed on four grounds. Whether the FTT had jurisdiction to consider whether a valid Notice to File pursuant to s8 Taxes Management Act 1970 had been issued to them for the purposes of a Schedule 55 Penalty; whether the FTT wrongly applied a literal interpretation of s8 of the TMA by concluding that it required an officer to be identified when a s8 Notice to File was issued; whether the FTT was wrong to conclude that s8(1) of the TMA required a s8 Notice to File to be issued by a “flesh and blood” officer rather than a computer, and whether the FTT had denied the Revenue procedural fairness in arriving at its decision. Joshua was led by Aparna Nathan QC.
• Wiesenfeld and Anor -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKUT 301 (TCC) (per UTJ Richards and UTJ Greenbank) The Appellants appealed against the decision to refuse to permit evidence to be adduced by and through their representative in a Polish Loss Relief appeal in the Tribunal. The FTT refused to permit the representative to say what he had heard as this was not contained within the witness evidence, and in any event was said to be hearsay. Joshua’s advocacy was praised by the Upper Tribunal as both being “fair” and “valiant”. The Upper Tribunal determined that the FTT had been wrong to exclude the evidence on the basis that it was hearsay but that this did not make any difference to the overall outcome of the Appeal which turned on whether the careless penalty that had been imposed (the Appellants wrongly having claimed loss relief) was proper. The Upper Tribunal said that it was and the Appeals were dismissed.
• Elbrook Cash and Carry Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKUT 201 (TCC) (per Zacaroli J and UTJ Scott) This case considered whether witness statements needed to have opinion redacted from them or whether the Tribunal had power to consider opinion evidence and simply give what weight it wished to that evidence. It also revised the so-called Fairford direction so as to permit cross-examination where there was no positive case advanced, but a challenge to the evidence was sought to be made by an Appellant. This represents an amendment to the guidance originally provided in Fairford but the Upper Tribunal refused to go so far as to say the Fairford direction was wrong in principle. Joshua was led by Howard Watkinson.
• Barry Edwards -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKUT 131 (TCC) (per Nugee J and UTJ Herrington) This case examined whether the Schedule 55 Penalty regime was proportionate and the fact that even if no tax was due, this did not amount to a “special circumstance” for the purposes of reducing a tax penalty to nil.
• Christine Perrin -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKUT 0128 (TCC) (per UTJ Herrington and UTJ Poole) This case marks the first opportunity the Upper Tribunal has had to consider the test for “reasonable excuse”. It is the now the leading authority applied by the First-tier Tribunal when considering whether what the taxpayer did was objectively reasonable when compared against what a reasonable taxpayer would have done.
• Timothy Raggatt QC -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKUT 412 (TCC) (per UTJ Herrington and UTJ Greenbank) This case dealt with the application, and confirmation, of the principles relating to “reasonable excuse” espoused in Perrin -v- HMRC. It confirmed that for an appeal against a penalty decision of the FTT, the test was one of perversity.

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

• Patrick McAllister -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKFTT 232 (TC) (per Judge McKeever) The taxpayer was given a lump sum payment by the Northern Ireland Assembly in return for a change to his employment contract to mitigate an equal pay exposure. The Tribunal considered whether the payment was from the employment. It determined that the payment was from the employment and was therefore taxable.
• Laing O’Rourke Services Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKFTT 211 (TC) (per Judge Bowler) The appeal considered whether payments to employees who chose a cash allowance instead of a company car on the basis that they would use a non-company car for business use were “earnings” and therefore liable to national insurance contributions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Joshua was led by Akash Nawbatt KC.
• Hayman Group Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKFTT 195 (TC) (per Judge Hyde) The Appellant had exported vodka under duty suspense. That vodka never arrived at its stated destination despite being receipted on EMCS. The Revenue assessed the vodka for excise duty on the basis of an irregularity in the movement. The Tribunal found that “detection” of an irregularity required the nature of the irregularity to be known, not just that an irregularity had occurred. It dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.
• Gooch Technology Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKFTT 149 (TC) (per Judge Bowler) The Revenue assessed £4.6M for undeclared domestic sales. The taxpayer alleged that the sales were made in the EU and therefore were VAT exempt. The Tribunal found that the taxpayer gave unsatisfactory evidence, and that on balance the sales must have been made in the UK and not declared to the Revenue.
• DMC Business Machines plc -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKFTT 72 (TC) (per Judge Citron) The Appellant challenged a decision to deny its input tax on the basis it knew or should have known the transactions were connected with fraud.
• Everyday Wholesale Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKFTT 28 (TC) (per Judge Redstone) The taxpayer sought information about the Revenue’s case and suggested that the Tribunal’s approach was consistent with Fairford. It rejected the taxpayer’s application.
• Tasca Tankers Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKFTT 25 (TC) (per Judge Brannan) The Revenue applied to strike out the taxpayer’s appeal on the basis that it had failed to adduce any evidence to counter its case. The Tribunal dismissed the Application. The Upper Tribunal has granted permission to appeal.
• Keith Murphy -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2020] UKFTT 461 (TC) (per Judge Brannan) The Appellant sued the Met Police for unpaid earnings. He entered a damages based agreement to bring the Claim with his lawyers. The claim settled and a settlement agreement entered into which triggered a success fee being paid to his lawyers. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Permission to appeal was granted to the Upper Tribunal which allowed the appeal. The Upper Tribunal has granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• Peterborough Plant Sales Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2020] UKFTT 338 (TC) (per Judge Chapman) The Appellant appealed against a denial of input tax on the Kittel basis in respect of heavy plant machinery. The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the appeal.
• Snapcrest Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2020] UKFTT 320 (TC) (per Judge Beare) The taxpayer sought permission to appeal out of time. The Tribunal accepted that permission should be granted in the circumstances of the case.
• M & M (Cambridge) LLP -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2020] UKFTT 107 (TC) (per Judge Zaman) The taxpayer appealed a Kittel assessment and Mecsek denial of zero rating which resulted in the transactinos being standard rated. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
• Jimcaale -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2020] UKFTT B1 (TC) (per Judge Bowler) The Appellant sought to challenge a civil evasion penalty and excise civil evasion penalty following her entry through the green channel at Heathrow airport carrying 61kgs of shisha tobacco. The Tribunal found that the conduct was dishonest and dismissed the appeal.
• CF Booth Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2020] UKFTT 35 (TC) (per Judge McNall) The Tribunal considered whether the taxpayer could suggest it did not know of a connection with fraud in the associated penalty proceedings despite the earlier finding of fact, after trial, that it did know. The Tribunal found that it would be inappropriate and struck it out, in part, as an abuse. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal has been granted.
• Canmi Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKFTT 16 (TC) (per Judge Popplewell) The Appellant sought a stay behind Glenn Martin Perfect which was referred to the CJEU. The Tribunal dismissed the Application to stay.
• Zafar Khan -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKFTT 751 (TC) (per Judge Aleksander) The Tribunal was invited to dismiss an appeal on the basis that the taxpayer failed to comply with an unless order. The Appeal was struck out. Permission to appeal has been granted to the Upper Tribunal.
• Mohammed Arif -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKFTT 711 (TC) (per Judge Connell) The Appellant sought to challenge a civil evasion penalty and excise civil evasion penalty following her entry through the green channel at Heathrow airport carrying 61kgs of shisha tobacco. The Tribunal found that the conduct was dishonest and dismissed the appeal.
• Impact Contracting Solutions Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKFTT 646 (TC) The Tribunal was faced with an Application expedite an appeal following it being deregistered from VAT with immediate effect. The Tribunal considered what the appropriate rest for expedition was in the Tribunal.
• Euro Beer Distribution Ltd -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKFTT 566 (TC) (per Judge Staker) This was an appeal against a VAT deregistration on the basis that it ceased to make or have the intention of making taxable supplies as well as a revocation of a WOWGR. The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction when considering deregistration from VAT in this context was both appellate and supervisory. Relying upon Judge Robin Vos’ decision of David Lowe -v- HMRC it was said that the Tribunal has a full appellate jurisdiction in relation to the question whether the Appellate has ceased to be registerable, and once that is established the Tribunal has supervisory jurisdiction in respect of the discretion that has been exercised. The Tribunal arrived at the orthodox position in respect of the WOWGR appeal (namely the Gora jurisdiction). The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant’s appeals.
• The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs -v- EDF Tax Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) (per Judge Mosedale) This was only the third appeal to be considered by the Tribunal when assessing whether an tax arrangement was “notifiable” or should be “treated as notifiable” for the purposes of the Finance Act 2004 (i.e. the DOTAS provisions). The Tribunal found that the Delta Arrangement at the heart of the Application were notifiable arrangements as they had three hallmarks present (premium fee, standardised tax products and employment income through third parties). It also found that EDF Tax was a promoter within the meaning of ss307 of the Finance Act 2004. 
• Field Opportunities Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKFTT 531 (TC) (per Judge Beare and Ms Hunter) This was the first PPI Data case to come before the Tribunal wherein the allegation was that the taxpayer knew or should have known that its transactions were connected with fraudulent default. This case involved considering of data protection laws from the time of the transactions and required the Revenue to obtain multiple expert statements dealing with how the market operated at the time including what the reasonable business in the market should have known. The Revenue were successful in persuading the Tribunal that the taxpayer should have known its transactions were connected with fraudulent default.
• Sandhamtrading (t/a Premier Metals Leeds) -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKFTT 218 (TC) (per Judge Rupert Jones and Mr Farooq) This was an MTIC case where the sole question was whether an agent of a partnership could have their knowledge imputed to the partnership for the purposes of the Kittel test.
• Michael Gold and Anne Elizabeth Gold t/a Goldhill Associates -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKFTT 186 (TC) (per Judge Allatt and Mrs Farquharson) This was an MTIC case where the Appellant trader was one of the largest sellers of cheat game ware and was the sole authorised distributor in the United Kingdom for similar products.
• Tower Bridge GP Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKFTT 176 (TC) (per Judge Rupert Jones) This was the first case which dealt with the obligations to retain valid invoices, alternative evidence which could be accepted by an officer and the impact of the Court of Appeal decision of Zipvit Limited -v- HMRC [2018] EWCA Civ 1515. There was also an associated MTIC. This decision also marks one of the first financial institutions to come before the Tribunal following the carbon credit trading in 2009 which saw carousel fraud spike across the entire European Union.
• Arthur & Ors -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKFTT 703 (TC) (per Judge Short and Mr Bird) This was a Schedule 36 Information Notice case in respect of 4 Appellants. The Tribunal also considered, in part, what was necessary to bring a valid appeal before the Tribunal.
• Goldshine Trade Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKFTT 601 (TC) (per Judge Rupert Jones) This was an Application by the taxpayer to extend the time for filing its Notice of Appeal on the basis that the Revenue were said to have assessed out of time. The Judge found that it was arguable that the Revenue had assessed out of time, but dismissed the Application.
• Fameface Import Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKFTT 565 (TC) (per Judge Beare) This was an Application to extend time to bring an appeal. Judge Beare determined that time should not be extended.
• Brian Giles -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKFTT 536 (TC) (per Judge Popplewell and Mrs Akhtar) which was a case involving tobacco that was being held by the taxpayer without duty having been paid. The tribunal found that it could not go behind the condemnation proceedings which were not challenged and that there was no reasonable excuse when judging what the Appellant did against the reasonable taxpayer in the position of the Appellant.
• CF Booth Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2017] UKFTT 813 (TC) (per Judge Brooks and Mrs Hunter) This was a denial of zero rating appeal, the first Mecsek appeal and a Kittel appeal. The Tribunal found that the Appellant knew its transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT.
• Elbrook (Cash and Carry) Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2017] UKFTT 650 (TC) (per Judge Brooks) This was an Application for further and better particulars made unsuccessfully by the Appellant.
• Unicorn Shipping Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2017] UKFTT 464 (TC) (per Judge Mosedale) This was a case in which the Commissioners sought, and were granted, further and better particulars.
• JTC Environment Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2017] UKFTT 155 (TC) (per Judge Hyde) This was a case in which the Commissioners were, and did, successfully resist permission to appeal being granted out of time.
• CF Booth Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2016] 261 (TC) (per Judge Berner) This was a case about the appropriateness of “Fairford Directions” being applied to the case.
• CF Booth Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2015] UKFTT 407 (TC) (per Judge Berner) This was a case about whether it was appropriate to consolidate two appeals together. 
• Foneshops Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2015] UKFTT 410 (TC) (per Judge Mosedale) This was a case about whether it was an abuse to relitigate an issue that ought to have been run in earlier proceedings.

Employment

Hitesh practices in all areas of employment law and has significant expertise in the law of work relationship status. Hitesh has experience doing a wide range of both respondent and claimant work in the employment tribunals. This work has ranged from acting for large high street retailers and small businesses, to individual claimants. This includes not only tribunal advocacy, but also advisory work on complex legal questions. He is also aware of the strategic and commercial interests of clients engaged in litigation.

Recent cases have included:

• a complex unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim against a large retailer
• redundancy dismissal claims
• holiday pay claims for casual workers
• whistleblowing; an employment status dispute concerning the use of personal service companies
• involvement in ‘fire and rehire’ litigation
• wrongful dismissal for a company executive.

He also gained extensive employment law litigation experience as a pupil to Alice Mayhew KC. This included high value whistleblowing claims, unfair dismissal, Permanent Health Insurance issues in relation to discrimination law, strike out hearings, remedies hearings, and preliminary hearings.

Tax

Hitesh is keenly developing his tax practice. He has been led in high profile litigation in the Court of Appeal: as junior to Aparna Nathan KC in R (Hoey) v HMRC [2022] Civ 656 (concerning the proper interpretation of the s.684(7A) ITEPA 2003 power); and as junior to Marika Lemos in Naghshineh v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 19 (concerning sideways loss relief). He has also been led on matters which concerned questions of work relationship status in the context of tax law.

As a pupil to Aparna Nathan KC, Hitesh gained a wide range of tax litigation experience, and specifically in Walweski v HMRC [2020] UKFTT 0058 (TC), which concerned a novel point of law arising out of s 850C – E ITTOIA 2005. He was also a pupil to Marika Lemos in the Upper Tribunal in HMRC v Naghshineh [2020] UKUT 30, which concerned the interpretation of the provisions on sideways loss relief in s 66 – 68 ITA 2007. During pupillage, Hitesh also gained experience in tax advisory work, including work on IR35 matters, and residence and domicile matters.

Personal Injury

Hitesh has gained court experience in personal injury matters since becoming a member of chambers.

As pupil to Stephen Cottrell and Jonathan Butters, Hitesh gained significant litigation and advisory experience in a wide range of personal injury matters. This included experience in relation to road traffic accidents, clinical negligence claims, asbestosis claims, and matters relating to causation and expert evidence (specifically as a pupil to Stephen Cottrell in Griffiths v TUI UK Limited [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB).

Personal Injury

As a pupil to Stephen Cottrell and Jonathan Butters, Charlie has gained experience of a wide variety of catastrophic injury, clinical negligence, fatal accident, employer’s liability and asbestos related claims. He has experience in drafting pleadings and schedules of loss in high value claims.

Charlie has provided support in respect of the following matters:

• Multiple high value personal injury claims
• Multiple high value fatal accident claims
• High value clinical negligence claim arising out of the misdiagnosis of Wilson’s Disease
• Complex causation issues in a secondary victim claim for Stephen Killalea KC
• Issues of causation and expert evidence in Griffiths v TUI UK Limited [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB)
• Advices on liability and quantum in respect of RTAs and accidents at work
• Fundamental dishonesty from both the Claimant and Defendant perspectives
• Preliminary hearings, JSMs and costs matters

Charlie’s medical background provides him with a considered understanding of medical expert evidence, and a particular appreciation of the injuries and illnesses suffered by claimants. Having diagnosed, treated, consented and operated on patients himself, he is well placed to navigate complex medical litigation issues from both the claimant and defendant perspective.  

Employment

Charlie welcomes instructions on behalf of both employees and employers.

As a pupil to Alice Mayhew KC, Charlie gained experience of a wide variety of employment issues, including high value discrimination, unfair dismissal, TUPE and whistle blowing claims.

Charlie has provided research and drafting support in the following matters:

• Variety of preliminary hearings, including for strike out, limitation issues, reconsiderations, and costs applications
• Grounds of resistance in discrimination, unfair dismissal and TUPE claims
• Drafting and research support for Alice Mayhew in a Court of Appeal case concerning disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments
• Research support on issues of privilege, covert surveillance, maternity and pregnancy discrimination, age discrimination in the context of Permanent Health Insurance
• Independent investigations of grievances

Tax

Charlie welcomes instructions on behalf of both taxpayers and The Revenue, and has been accepted on the Junior Junior scheme for government work.

He is currently instructed in a high value First Tier Tribunal case concerning residence and double taxation agreements, as a junior to Christopher Stone.

As a pupil to Marika Lemos, Charlie gained experience in a wide range of tax litigation. This included research support to Aparna Nathan KC and Marika Lemos Reid in Reid & Emblin v HMRC [2020] UKUT 61 (TCC) in the Upper Tribunal on the validity of closure notices.

Charlie provided support to Marika Lemos in Income Plus Services Limited v The Treasury TC/2019/00182; a complex appeal in the Isle of Man VAT Tribunal concerning the VAT treatment of a supply of services through an umbrella company.

Charlie has also gained experience of advisory work on behalf of both taxpayers and the revenue, including issues of; discovery assessments, residence and domicile, personal portfolio bonds, IHT/CGT/income tax liability under trusts, tax status of cryptocurrency and the application of IR35 in a case concerning a sports star.

Financial Mis-Selling and Consumer Credit

Charlie welcomes instructions in this field, in claims arising from the mis-selling of PPI. He is familiar with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the practical elements of consumer credit litigation.

In the course of his pupillage Charlie has provided support to Jonathan Butters in a variety of PPI claims with a focus on undisclosed commissions pursuant to sections 140A-D of the CCA.

Charlie has provided research support to Robert Weir KC in relation to the upcoming appeal of Canada Square Operations Limited v Potter [2020] EWHC 672 (QB) to the Court of Appeal, which focuses on the interpretation of section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 in relation to deliberate concealment of facts relevant to the right of action.

He has received instructions in an unfair relationship claim under section 140A CCA on behalf of the claimant, and is familiar with the complex issues arising out of unfairness, remedy, limitation, the transitional provisions of the CCA 2006 and compromise.

Tax

Rebecca has experience of all aspects of private client, corporate tax and VAT work, as well as substantial experience of judicial review.

She has appeared at all levels of courts and tribunals from the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) to the Supreme Court, on a range of direct and indirect tax issues.

She has been instructed on two of the largest tax avoidance cases of recent years, Eclipse Film Partners (No 35) LLP v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 95, led by Malcolm Gammie QC, and Tower MCashback led by Kevin Prosser QC, concerning tax avoidance schemes involving over £4billion of tax.

She appeared in BAA v HMRC in the Court of Appeal, led by Roderick Cordara QC and David Southern QC, on a European law point relating to the recovery of input tax incurred by a takeover vehicle.

She was also instructed on the early judicial reviews of accelerated payment notices. R (Rowe) v HM Revenue & Customs [2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin) and R (Walapu) v HM Revenue & Customs [2016] EWHC 658 (Admin).

Recent cases include:

Supreme Court

• Eclipse Film Partners v HMRC (April 2016): Junior Counsel for the Crown led by Malcolm Gammie QC (Eclipse was refused permission at oral hearing)
• Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs v Tower MCashback LLP 2 [2011] UKSC 19: Junior Counsel for the Crown, led by Kevin Prosser QC

Court of Appeal

• Arthur v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 761
• Donaldson v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 761
• Donaldson v HMRC (OPH) [reference]
• BAA v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 112
• HMRC v Donaldson [2014] UKUT 0536 (TCC): Appointed sole advocate to the Upper Tribunal by the President of the Upper Tribunal

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court)

• R (Walapu) v HM Revenue & Customs [2016] EWHC 658 (Admin)
• R (Rowe) v HM Revenue & Customs [2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin)

Upper Tribunal

• Wilson v HMRC [2021] UKUT 239, [2021] STC 2044
• HMRC v Sippchoice Ltd [2020] UKUT 149, [2020] 4 WLR 80, [2020] STC 1331
• HMRC v Shaw & Rogers [2019] UKUT 406 (TCC), [2020] 4 WLR 23
• HMRC v Goldsmith [2019] STC 2512
• HMRC v Sippchoice [2017] UKUT 87
• Hills & Anor v Revenue And Customs [2016] UKUT 189

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

• HMRC v AML Tax (UK) Limited [2022] UKFTT 114
• AD Bly (Groundworks & Civil Engineering) Limited & another v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 445
• Ball Europe Limited v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 23
• Wilson v HMRC [2020] UKFTT
• HMRC v White Collar Financial [2020] UKFTT 459
• NT ADA LIMITED v Revenue & Customs [2019] UKFTT 333 (TC)
• Atholl House Productions Limited v Revenue & Customs [2019] UKFTT 0242 (TC)
• Lorimer v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2016] UKFTT 315
• Hasbro European Trading BV v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 186

Advisory and Tax Planning

Rebecca practises in all areas of direct tax and VAT

• Tax avoidance litigation
• Employment related taxation
• Capital gains tax (and corporation tax on chargeable gains)
• Property transactions
• Private equity transactions
• IHT planning, pensions and QROPS
• Insolvency and administration
• Bankruptcy litigation
• Tax planning (residence and domicile)
• All aspects of VAT
• SDLT

Off-payroll working (IR35)

Rebecca Murray has acted for individuals receiving income via personal service companies, for HMRC against agency/umbrella companies, and for partners of partnerships and LLPs in relation to questions of "employment or self-employment"​.  

Recent reported cases include Atholl House Productions v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 242, in which she successfully appeared as sole Counsel for Kaye Adams, BBC Presenter. 

To view her webinar on the case law principles applied by the tribunal in recent cases please click here.

Investigations

His Honour Jeffrey Burke QC re-joined Devereux in 2019 as part of the mediation and arbitration team, following an extensive judicial career.  He is also able to conduct investigations within organisations, either independently or acting as part of a team.  Jeffrey will draw on his wide-ranging experience, both at the Bar and as a Judge, in seeking to resolve disputes outside the formal court and tribunal structure.  In 1998 he was appointed a deputy judge of the Queen’s Bench Division and a judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and, in 1995, he became a legal chair of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. He was appointed as a Circuit Judge in 2002 and, in that capacity, undertook both civil and criminal work. Jeffrey continued to sit as a judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal until 2013, and as a judicial member of the Parole Board up to 2018. Between 2017-18, Jeffrey was appointed as Acting Certification Officer of Trade Unions and Employers Associations.

Employment

Anna has a substantial and busy employment and partnership law practice, appearing at all stages of proceedings in the tribunal, EAT and civil courts. She is an excellent strategist and tactician, and her prior experience as a director and senior leader across a range of industries means that she can quickly understand the context and commercial realities within which her clients operate.   

Anna's practice spans the full range of employment work and partnership work including whistleblowing (including applications for interim relief), equal pay, TUPE, breach of contract, remuneration (particularly in respect of senior executives), discrimination and business protection. 

Regularly instructed to advise on business protection matters, Anna can quickly advise on the first steps that need to be taken to secure her client’s interests and then advise on the right strategy to take to secure interim and final relief, as appropriate, in the courts. Recent instructions have included confidential information (seeking injunctive relief, document orders and breach of contract actions), team moves and restrictive covenants/competitive activity.   

A significant part of Anna’s practice is advising on matters relating to executive remuneration and she has experience of both bringing and defending bonus and wrongful dismissal cases in the High Court and related unfair prejudice issues.

She is also regularly asked to advise on a range of partnership disputes including expulsion, disciplinary and can draw on her prior professional experience to provide pragmatic and commercial advice that safeguards the relationship wherever possible.

Anna has significant experience of conducting investigations with recent experience in the financial services, energy, hospitality, healthcare, defence and FMCG sectors. She is particularly sought after for sensitive conduct allegations against senior executives and allegations of fraud. Drawing upon her prior experience within the financial services sector, Anna regularly conducts regulatory investigations or those employment investigations with a regulatory angle.

She can also advise on the personal injury aspects of employment disputes including choice of forum and the merits of bringing a claim in the civil courts. She also has experience of the detailed assessment of costs in both the civil courts and tribunal.

Recent cases include:

• Advising the Defendants to a multi million pound breach of contract claim in the High Court
• Advising and litigating a number of breach of restrictive covenants cases
• Successfully defending an application for interim relief in respect of trade union activities;
• Advising a multi national financial services institute on the discretionary payment of bonuses;
• Acting for a senior financial services executive in respect of unpaid commission payments in the High Court;
• Advising a NDPB on large scale pay reforms and related equal pay issues;
• Acting for a senior financial services executive in respect of his entitlement to LTIP and bonus upon redundancy;
• Acting for the respondent in a High Court; injunctive relief matter relating to the enforcement of post-termination restrictions;
• Advising on the prospects of establishing that a bonus and enhanced redundancy package were owed to a C-suite executive at a major bank;
• Advising on territoriality in respect of a senior investment banker assigned to the New York office;
• Representing R1 in a victimisation claim against eight investment banks/brokers;
• Acting for a claimant in a potential career loss case against a major professional services firm;
• Successfully resisting an application for interim relief for a major luxury retailer, major telecoms provider and investment bank;
• Instructed to advise in relation to stigma loss and remedy in a high value whistleblowing matter;
• Advising a major national organisation on the CJRS and its implication on concurrent Union negotiations;
• Acting for the Defendant in a civil breach of contract claim for arrears of annual leave allowances - the claim was discontinued after pleading the defence;
• Acting for the Claimant, the General Counsel of a multinational media company, in a high value whistleblowing claim raising complex jurisdictional and conflict of laws issues;
• Acting for the Claimant, a senior manager at a major UK newspaper, in a claim for equal pay, constructive unfair dismissal, discrimination and dismissal following a disputed TUPE transfer;
• Instructed by a large London university in a complex discrimination and breach of contract case;
• Acting for a large 5* London hotel in a constructive unfair dismissal claim and series of redundancy claims;
• Advising a national property and financial services company in a wide variety of employment matters including breach of contract, negligent misstatement, unfair dismissal and injunctive proceedings;
• Investigation into whistleblowing allegations at a multinational financial services institution;
• Junior to Andrew Burns KC in a dispute over working patterns by the employees of a major airline;
• Advising on the taxation of a multi-million pound settlement.

Anna is a contributor to the most recent edition of Discrimination Law.

She is a member of ELBA and ELA and a member of the ELA City Regulation Standing Committee.

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Anna has a busy commercial litigation practice which covers the full range of disputes including breach of contract, civil fraud, injunctive relief, and insurance/reinsurance. In advising her clients, she can draw upon her extensive advisory background as a corporate and commercial strategy consultant and regulatory experience working for a major hedge fund, to find practical and pragmatic solutions. Her clients particularly value her strategic approach and ability to distil complex arguments into cogent submissions. 

She is currently junior to Andrew Burns KC in a high value civil fraud/professional negligence claim against a firm of trade mark attorneys in respect of the transfer of business rights. 

Anna also has an extensive practice spanning the crossover between employment and commercial law including in relation to business protection, unfair prejudice petitions and breach of contract.

Other recent instructions include a range of High Court breach of contract claims in relation to the supply of goods and services, applications for injunctive relief and an action brought under Part XXV of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Further details of her insurance practice appear under that heading but current instructions include as junior to Andrew Burns KC in several COVID-19/business interruption reinsurance arbitrations and advising on a range of coverage issues, aggregation, and avoidance cases.

Anna is a member of COMBAR, BILA, the International Forum of Senior Executive Advisors and Association of Partnership Practitioners.

Professional Negligence

Anna accepts instructions in professional negligence matters with a focus on claims brought against solicitors and barristers.

Recent instructions include:

• Acting for the claimant in respect of a claim in the High Court against counsel and solicitors for the under-settlement of employment tribunal proceedings.
• Junior to Andrew Burns KC in a high value civil fraud/professional negligence claim against a firm of patent attorneys/solicitors in respect of the transfer of business rights.
• Advising a financial services institution on a professional negligence claim against its solicitors in respect of a commercial property transaction.
• Acting against a firm of solicitors in respect of the lost opportunity to litigate a high value discrimination claim.

Anna is a member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association.

Regulatory & Professional Discipline

Drawing upon her background in financial services, Anna advises across the full range of conduct and remuneration issues including those related to Brexit, the SMCR and regulatory references. Further, her extensive employment practice allows her to work seamlessly across both disciplines and she regularly advises on matters relating to professional conduct and discipline including providing representation at tribunal hearings.

Anna regularly carries out investigations for regulated firms and her experience working in the industry allows her to quickly grasp not only the technical issues involved but the wider context of the operating environment.

Recent work includes advising a major hedge fund on the regulatory implications of bringing its European branch employees onto the UK payroll, an action under Part XXV of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and conducting a regulatory investigation into the General Manager of a major credit union.

She is a member of the ELA City Regulation Standing Committee.

Investigations

Anna has considerable experience of conducting both employment and regulatory investigations with particular experience in the financial and professional services sectors.

Having advised Boards and Ministers in her former career, she understands the importance of an organised, thorough, and practical approach and her significant experience prior to practising at the Bar enables her to quickly understand the organisational context particularly at a senior executive level.

Anna was instructed as junior to Bruce Carr KC in the Carr Review of the Royal College of Nursing. 

Recent instructions include:

• Allegations of sexual misconduct against a senior executive.
• The investigation of a senior individual subject to the SMCR who raised issues of whistleblowing and discrimination following their dismissal. 
• A regulatory investigation into the conduct a former CEO of a financial services firm.
• An investigation into allegations of misconduct against a senior investment professional.

Anna is a member of the ELA City Regulation Standing Committee.

Insurance & Reinsurance

Anna has a busy insurance and reinsurance practice acting for both parties across all industry sectors. She has particular experience of issues relating to the duty of fair presentation and aggregation.

She is currently instructed as junior to Andrew Burns KC in several COVID-19/business interruption reinsurance arbitrations.

Other recent cases include a complex advisory matter concerning a legal expenses policy, a professional negligence claim against a chartered accountant and litigation associated with a high-value insurance claim following a fatal accident at work.

She is a contributing author for Lexi PSL Insurance and a member of BILA.

Education

Anna has particular experience of breach of contract and discrimination matters in an education context having acted for a number of higher education providers and colleges in both the Employment Tribunal and civil courts.

For example, she was recently successful at trial in resisting a claim against a University for a failure to make reasonable adjustments during its admissions procedure and in a breach of contract claim against another University, the Claimant having discontinued proceedings after her pleaded defence was served. 

She is currently instructed in a pregnancy discrimination case against an Academy and in a race discrimination case against a university, both in the Employment Tribunal. 

Anna is a contributing author to the current edition of Discrimination Law published by Bloomsbury Professional.

Employment

Sam has a busy and varied practice in all areas of employment and discrimination law, representing both employees and employers across the full range of statutory employment rights, commercial employment claims in the civil courts and those arising from industrial relations disputes.

Recent work includes:

Statutory employment claims

• Rojha v Zinc Media Group PLC. Represented the respondent in resisting an appeal against the making of unless orders which resulted in the striking out of the claimant’s case in its entirety.
• Marangakis v Iceland Foods Limited. Represented the claimant/appellant before the EAT in the first appellate authority concerning the requirements for an employee to withdraw from an internal appeal against dismissal. See press coverage here and here.
• Shield v Secretary of State for Department for Work and Pensions (Formerly BPDTS Limited). Represented the Claimant/Appellant before the EAT in an appeal against a finding that the Claimant was not disabled.
• Thompson v Informatica Software Ltd. Represented the claimant (junior to Andrew Burns KC) in an appeal to the EAT concerning the proper construction of Anti-Corruption policies and the limits of reliance on employee admissions.
• Zarembok v BP and others. Represented the respondent (junior to Akash Nawbatt KC) in, a complex 26 day ET hearing involving whistleblowing allegations made by a commodities trader concerning the conduct of business in developing markets. See press here: CityAM, Financial Times.

Industrial relations

• Olsten (UK) Holdings Limited v Adecco Group European Works Council. Acting for Olsten (junior to Andrew Burns KC) in appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal regarding alleged breaches of a European Works Council agreement under The Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999. See press coverage here and here.
• Advising on section 140B TULCRA claims concerning allegations of breaches of collective bargaining agreements.
• Advising on the effect of section 240 TULCRA on strikes in the healthcare sector.

Civil employment claims

• Advanced Bacterial Sciences Limited v No Chem Limited and others. Acted for the Claimant in a multi-party High Court claim for breach of restrictive covenants, breach of tortious duties of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty and unlawful means conspiracy.
• Advising an employee concerning a proposed claim for breach of confidentiality and for unjust enrichment.
• Sam regularly advises on the scope of restrictive covenants, both for departing employees and businesses concerned about the use of confidential business information.

Sam is editor of the ‘Maternity & Pregnancy’, ‘Sex’, ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘Marriage and Civil Partnerships’ chapters of Discrimination Law published by Bloomsbury Professional, contributes to the Devereux Employment Law blog and the PLC Practical Law blog and regularly speaks in Devereux Chambers seminars. He is a member of ELBA and ELA.

Personal Injury

Sam has a substantial personal injury practice and welcomes instruct. He is also instructed in cases concerning complex issues of substantial and procedural law, often on appeal.

Sam has extensive experience in drafting pleadings and schedules of loss in high value claims, and of resisting allegations of fundamental dishonesty brought against claimants.

His work spans the full range of injury claims, including road traffic accidents, employers’ liability, occupiers’ liability, highways act clams, travel claims and fatal accidents.

Recent work includes:

• Rabot v Hassam & Briggs v Laditan. Representing the Interveners (junior to Robert Weir KC) in the two test cases leapfrogged to the Court of Appeal to determine the method of valuing mixed injury claims which include an award under the whiplash tariff. See press coverage here, here and here.
• Stait v Cosmos Insurance Limited Cyprus. Representing the Claimant (junior to Rob Weir KC and Sarah Prager) in applying permission to appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the Claimant’s domicile Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Recast).
• DSF (a child by his litigation friend BAE) v Goold & UK Insurance Limited. Representing a minor Claimant (junior to Stephen Killalea KC) in an extremely high value claim arising out of a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.
• Bull v Aigbefoh. Representing the Defendant (junior to Christopher Walker) in a high value claim arising from alleged mild traumatic brain injury.
• Advising a Claimant on the prospects of challenging CRU certificates which designate all of the Claimant’s payments of Universal Credit as recoverable.
• Junior to Robert Weir KC in a case brought by a young child who suffered meningitis whilst on a cruise holiday in the Caribbean. The claimant issued in Florida and the defendant responded by obtaining an anti-suit injunction in England. The claim was settled prior to the substantive hearing of the anti-suit injunction. See Settlement Update: Summer 2021.
• Russell v Kent County Council. Succeeded at a liability trial regarding defects in a highway where the defendant claimed reliance on their highways repair policy. The claim was settled in June 2022 for a confidential sum.
• Acting for the Claimants in secondary victim claims involving complex issues of causation of mental health conditions. Successful settlement was obtained following service of Sam’s pleadings.

Sam is a member of PIBA and APIL.

Clinical Negligence

Sam accepts instructions on behalf of claimants and defendants in all areas of clinical negligence. He is experienced at drafting pleadings in cases raising complex issues of causation requiring multi-disciplinary expert evidence. He is also experienced at advising on the complex issues of causation and quantum that arise in clinical negligence disputes.

Sam contributes to the Personal Injury Brief Update Law Journal on a regular basis on matters arising out of clinical negligence claims. Recent articles include:

Recent articles include:

• Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14: Damages are recoverable for foreign commercial surrogacy arrangements.

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Sam has a growing practice in high-value commercial disputes beyond his level of call, and has a particular interest in claims arising for breaches of directors’ duties, shareholder disputes, and professional negligence claims.

Recent work includes:

• Leeway Services Limited v Amazon Payments (UK) Limited & Ors. Pleading a claim for breach of contract and breaches of the Online Platforms Regulation against Amazon companies which had suspended and limited the claimant’s business.
• Tinkler v Soanes, a claim for breach of directors’ duties and unlawful means conspiracy against a former director of Stobart Capital Limited.
• Advising on a non-party disclosure application in Tinkler v Stobart Group and others, a claim to set aside the judgment in Stobart Group v Tinkler [2019] EWHC 258 (Comm) for fraudulent non-disclosure in the original proceedings.
• Advising on a section 994 claim arising from alleged misappropriation of company funds to lower corporation tax liabilities.
• Advising on claims for breaches of a directors’ ongoing duties following solicitation of the company’s clients after his resignation.

Sam is a member of COMBAR.

Insurance & Reinsurance

Sam accepts instructions in all areas of insurance and reinsurance work for both insurers and policyholders, including both general insurance issues and those arising from COVID-19 related issues.

Recent work includes:

• Advising an amusement arcade as to coverage and quantum of a proposed claim under its Business Interruption Insurance cover, including consideration of methods of providing the presence of Covid-19 as required by an ‘at the premises’ clause.
• Advising a law firm concerning the scope of their Professional Indemnity Insurance coverage.
• Assisting in arbitral proceedings relating to a major claim arising out of a contractors’ all-risks policy.
• Assisting the FCA team in the Business Interruption test case litigation (The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch and Others [2021] UKSC 1).

Tax

Sam welcomes instructions on behalf of both taxpayers and the revenue. He has particular experience where allegations of fraud are made in the FTT, most commonly in cases concerning the application of the principles from Kittel and Ablessio.

Recent work includes:

• HMRC v Murphy. Appeared in the Court of Appeal (junior to Joshua Carey), concerning whether success fees and ATE insurance in a claim for unlawful deductions of wages were sums which should be deducted in calculating the net profit received from employment.
• HMRC v A Taxpayer. Appeared in the FTT and UT (junior to Chris Stone)  in the first appeal concerning the definition of “exceptional circumstances” in the Statutory Residence Test under Schedule 45 FA 2013.
• Minstrell Recruitment Ltd v HMRC. Representing HMRC (junior to Joshua Carey) in appeals concerning denial of input tax on the Kittel basis, and refusal to register phoenix companies on the Ablessio basis.
• Tasca Tankers Ltd v HMRC. Representing HMRC in an application to strike out an appeal on the basis that the appellant had no reasonable prospect of rebutting an inference that the appellant should have known that their transactions were connected with fraud.
• Representing HMRC in an appeal concerning denial of input tax on the Kittel basis.
• Instructed for a taxpayer to defend County Court proceedings for the enforcement of sums alleged to be due following the issue of Accelerated Payment Notices.

Sam has spoken on the Devereux Chambers Elevenses webinar series on the Transfer of Assets Abroad, and the Junior Tax webinar series on the Jurisdiction of the FTT.  

Employment

John practises all areas of employment and discrimination law. He has a particular interest in appellate work; industrial relations; autonomous decision making; restraint of trade; and whistleblowing. John was invited to speak on industrial relations at the ELA Annual Conference in 2023 and is a member of the ELA working group responding to the Government’s AI white paper. He is currently completing the Said Business School: ‘Oxford Artificial Intelligence Programme’.

In addition to regular appearances in the ET, recent case highlights include:

• Riley v DL Insurance Services – EAT hearing listed summer 2023 following 3(10) hearing to address correct interpretation of dismissal for purpose of unfair dismissal; procedural unfairness; and discretion to extend time.
• Shoker v Wolverhampton Homes – awaiting listing of full merits hearing in EAT, likely late 2023.
• Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v Royal College of Nursing (2023): led by Andrew Burns KC, successfully sought a declaration preventing the RCN from taking unlawful strike action on 2 May 2023.
• Geeks Limited v Watts: trial listed for summer 2023, acting for the defendant in ongoing litigation addressing the application of the doctrine of restraint of trade and the enforceability of training fee claw back clauses (instructed by the Good Law Project).
• Smith v Tesco Stores Ltd [2023] EAT 11 successfully opposed appeal: persuaded the EAT that the employment tribunal correctly held that the claimant had acted in a manner that was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious, concluded that a fair trial was no longer possible and decided it was proportionate to strike out the entire claim.
• Trade Union v Employer (2023): advising multinational organisation about section 145B risks (junior to Andrew Burns KC).
• Former Employees v Law Firm (2023): instructed by a law firm in relation to discrimination and whistleblowing claims brought by former fee earner.
• Employer v Trade Union (2023): advising multinational organisation about interpretation of collective agreements and extent of liability to pay contractual redundancy (junior to Andrew Burns KC).
• Fenniche v Kuwait Health Office and The Government of the State of Kuwait (2023): successfully represented the claimant in a complex discrimination claim engaging questions of state immunity. A remedy hearing is listed for 2024 with damages claimed in excess of £750,000.
• Jonson v B&M (2023): successfully opposed appeal in the EAT against the Registrar’s decision not to extend time for lodging an appeal.
• International consultancy v former employee (2022): advising employer in relation to enforceability of restrictive covenants and seeking injunctive relief.
• Trade Union v Employer (2022): advising transport company in relation to potential injunctive relief, issues arising out of Mercer v Alternative Futures Group Ltd and section 145B liability (junior to Andrew Burns KC).
• Investigation into allegations of discrimination made against NHT Trust (2022): assisting Georgia Hicks.
• Investigation into allegations of discrimination made against commercial gallery (2022): assisting Lucinda Harris

Personal Injury

Ongoing and recent litigation:

• Rugby concussion group litigation (ongoing): junior to Susan Rodway KC, Shaman Kapoor, Stuart Brady and Emma Corkill
• Huntercombe Hospital litigation (ongoing): junior to Niazi Fetto KC, Prof. Conor Gearty KC, Peter Edwards and Stephen Cottrell
• Catastrophic restraint (ongoing): junior to Stephen Killalea KC and Peter Edwards
• Catastrophic RTA (ongoing): junior to Susan Rodway KC
• Serious injury falling tree (ongoing): instructed by Irwin Mitchell London.
• Catastrophic RTA (ongoing): junior to Christopher Walker
• Catastrophic construction accident (ongoing): junior to Stephen Killalea KC
• Serious injury workplace circular saw (ongoing): instructed by Irwin Mitchell London
• Catastrophic wakeboarding accident (ongoing): junior to Stephen Killalea KC
• FAA workplace (ongoing): instructed by Irwin Mitchell Bristol
• Ronngard v Davies (2023): instructed by Dunne and Co, successful appeal and re-trial for cyclist struck by a vehicle emerging from a side road
• Client v Insurer (2023), instructed by Pickering and Butters, secured a settlement in the region of £800,000 for a client who suffered life threatening injuries in an RTA
• Inquest motorcycling accident (2022)
• Inquest (2022) aortic dissection

Insurance & Reinsurance

John is regularly instructed on a range of Insurance and Reinsurance disputes. He assisted Colin Edelman KC and Andrew Burns QC draft the Third Edition of the Law of Reinsurance.

Recent highlights include:

• Advising 2nd XS insurers in relation to aggregations issues arising out of SRA standard terms (junior to Andrew Burns KC) (2023)
• Advising multiple litigations in relationt to potential contractual claims against a social media platform (junior to Richard Harrinson) (2023)
• Instructed on a series of advisory briefs, led by Richard Harrison, in relation to issues arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and business interruption (2022)
• Advising insurers in relation to aggregation issues arisingout of SRA standard terms (junior to Andrew Burns KC) (2022)Junior to Richard Harrison in relation to a coverage dispute under a product liability policy following the sale of allegedly defective adhesive (2021)
• Junior to Richard Harrison advising in relation to the scope of a professional liability policy issued to a financial institution, concerning proper construction of insuring clause (2021)
• Junior to Richard Harrison advising on coverage and notification issues in relation to a professional liability policy issued to a private medical practice (2021)
• Being led by Richard Harrison in a complex High Court product liability dispute (2022)
• External advisor to the FCA team in the Business Interruption test case litigation (2020)
• Assisting Colin Edelman KC and Richard Harrison, in the preparation for the Supreme Court hearing in R & S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering Limited v UK Insurance Limited [2019] UKSC 16.
• Assisting Andrew Burns KC in Allianz Insurance Plc v Tonicstar Ltd [2018] 1 Lloyd's Rep 38 – construction of agreement in relation to necessary qualifications of arbitrator.
• Assisting Richard Harrison in Catlin Syndicate Ltd v Weyerhaeuser Co [2018] EWHC 3609 (Comm) anti-suit injunctions, incorporation of an arbitration clause and construction of an excess layer insurance policy.

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Building on his experience as a member of the Shell Global Litigation team, John has experience of litigation in both the courts and arbitration. He regularly accepts instructions in respect of a wide range of contractual disputes.

Recent highlights include:

• Currently being led by Richard Harrison in a complex High Court product liability dispute.
• Assisting Andrew Burns KC in drafting an advice in relation to an aggregation clause.
• Currently being led by Alice Mayhew KC in a High Court dispute concerning breach of restrictive covenants and breach of confidence.
• Assisting Colin Edelman KC and Richard Harrison, albeit at a late stage, in the preparation for the Supreme Court hearing in R & S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering Limited v UK Insurance Limited [2019] UKSC 16.
• Successfully establishing the validity of a settlement agreement in a two-day trial of a preliminary issue.
• Advising a client alongside Andrew Burns KC as to the prospect of pursuing the executor of a deceased defendant.

Clinical Negligence

John accepts instruction across the full range of medical disciplines. John is currently instructed to represent the family in an inquest into the death of a patient who suffered an aortic dissection.

Investigations

John’s experience includes working on the following investigations:

• Investigation into alleged whistleblowing at fintech business (2023)
• Investigation into alleged discrimination at law firm (2023)
• Investigation into allegations of discrimination made against NHT Trust (2022)
• Investigation into allegations of discrimination made against commercial gallery (2022)

Employment

Harry has a broad practice covering all areas of employment law and acts for both claimants and respondents. He appears regularly in the Employment Tribunal and is commonly instructed in cases with complex factual backgrounds and cases that are of particular reputational importance to his clients. Harry has also been instructed on a number of occasions in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and is comfortable with appellate litigation raising novel issues of law.

Harry has a particular expertise in employment status. He is instructed as junior counsel in Professional Game Match Officials Limited v HMRC, which is the first case in over 20 years in which the Supreme Court will address the relevant common law test for employment status. He was also previously instructed as junior Counsel in Kickabout Productions Limited v HMRC, an IR35 case concerning employment status and the construction of contracts of employment.

Harry's recent instructions in the Employment Appeal Tribunal include: 

British Telecommunications plc v Robertson (UKEAT/0229/20/RN) - Harry acted for the successful Respondent, appealing against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that the employee had been both unfairly dismissed and subjected to s.15 discrimination arising from disability. Auerbach J accepted that the Tribunal had failed to properly apply the test for causation under for the purposes of s.15 after reaching an unexpected finding in relation to disability. He also found that the Tribunal had erred in relation to the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments, and dismissed that aspect of the claim without remitting it to the Tribunal.  

Johnson vs Latchman (UKEAT/0239/19/OO) - Harry acted for the successful Claimant, responding to an appeal against a decision to extend the time for a Claimant to bring a claim for disability discrimination. Tucker J found that the ET's findings were open to it, and that, in any event, she would have made the same decision. 

Godwin Jumbo v Zonal Retail Data Systems  (UKEAT/0275/19/LA) - Harry acted for the Respondent and responded to an appeal against a decision not to allow the Claimant to amend his claim to add four new causes of action where the Claimant had argued the ET had misapplied both the tests for extension of time and the balance of hardship test for applications to amend. 

Le Page v East London NHS Foundation Trust (UKEAT0161/19/OO) - Harry represented the Respondent who successfully applied for costs following withdrawal of the Claimant's appeal. Eady J accepted the Respondent's submissions and awarded costs having found that the appeal was both unreasonable and misconceived. 

Harry has recently been instructed in the following matters in the Employment Tribunal: 

• Singh vs M&S plc - Harry acted for the Respondent in a seven-day hearing, dealing with numerous allegations of discrimination arising from the Claimant's disability which alleged to culminate with forcing the Claimant to resign. Harry successfully defended the Claim in its entirety
• Black vs FCO Services - A ten day trial for constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination in which Harry acted for the Respondent (led by Christopher Stone) and successfully restricted the scope of the Claimant's claim to the month prior to dismissal although the claim related to events took place several years beforehand. 
• Hall v BT plc – Harry acted for the successful Respondent in a 6-day case for unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and sex discrimination. The Claimant was the sole-carer for his disabled daughter, and argued that the Respondent’s decision to restructure the business without permitting him to work from home was discriminatory. The Claimant sought to apply s.19 of the Equality Act 2010, relying on his daughter’s disability, by analogy with the comparable European case of CHEZ. The case involved a novel attempt to interpret s.19 in accordance with the Marleasing principle. Harry successfully defended the claim in its entirety.
• Smith v The University of Brighton Academies Trust – Harry acted for the Claimant in a 5-day whistleblowing claim. The Claimant was an Assistant Principal who complained that pupil safeguarding procedures were not being properly followed prior to being made redundant.
• Voronov v University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust – Harry acted for the successful Respondent at a 4-day case for race and sexual orientation discrimination. The Claimant had applied unsuccessfully for a role with the Respondent and did not accept that it was because of his performance in the application process.
• A highly contentious whistleblowing case (acting for the Respondent) in which anonymisation orders have been made and the disclosures are said to have been made in bad faith which was listed for an 8 day hearing prior to settlement. Harry was successful in defending the anonymisation order despite challenge by the Claimant. 
• Sterling v Genesis Research Trust and Professor Lord Winston  - Harry acted for the successful Respondents opposing an application for interim relief on the basis that the redundancy exercise leading to the Claimant’s dismissal was likely genuine. 
• Robertson v British Telecommunications plc - Harry acted for the Respondent in the two-day remedy hearing, dealing with issues of pensions loss and loss of earnings over a period of two years following dismissal, and was successful in obtaining judgment in the sum contended for by the Respondent.

In addition to regular appearances in the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Harry’s practice includes drafting witness statements, assisting in grievance and disciplinary investigations, and advising clients both in writing and in conference.

Harry’s recent advisory instructions include:

• A case in which an employee who was based overseas had not received his normal bonus payment. Harry advised on the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal to hear a claim and on the proper construction and application of the employment contract and bonus scheme documentation.
• A case in which the same employee had brought two successive claims against the same employee. Harry was asked to advise as to the procedural consequences of the overlap between the two claims and to provide his strategic input on preparation of the latter claim for trial. Harry was also instructed on both claims and successfully defended both in full.
• A case in which a wasted costs application was made against the claimant’s representative. Harry was instructed to advise the claimant’s representative about the merits of the wasted costs application made against them.

Personal Injury

Harry has experience in a wide range of multi-track personal injury matters. The majority of his instructions are in cases where the claimant has suffered a permanent or life-altering injury. He also has experience in attending inquests in matters where fatal accident claims are in prospect. Harry predominantly represents Claimants but also accepts instructions to act on behalf of Defendants.

Harry was instructed as junior to Robert Weir KC appeared in the Supreme Court (as junior counsel) in the matter of Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 Harry acted for the successful Respondent.

Harry's recent instructions include:

• A case in which a wrist injury at work led the claimant to develop complex regional pain syndrome, the symptoms of which will be permanent. The case involved substantial disputed medical evidence with varying diagnoses in the fields of psychiatry and pain management.
• A case in which the claimant was shot during a hunting accident. The bullet caused a large amount of tissue loss and nerve damage resulting in disability that is likely to be permanent.
• A case in which the claimant HGV driver was struck by a falling oak barrel which fell from the back of another driver’s vehicle and landed on his ankle, causing a crushing injury to the end of the fibula, and a break to the outer fibula. Primary liability was admitted but contributory negligence was alleged. The case settled for £110,000.
• A two day inquest into the death of a person resulting from a pulmonary embolism whose prescription for anticoagulation medication ended after a review appointment was cancelled due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Harry was instructed on behalf of the bereaved family.
• A case in which the claimant was a captain on a seafaring vessel. The accident took place when he slipped and fell. Liability was denied, the Claimant averred that the fall was caused by a failure to maintain the stairway, on which he fell, in a safe condition, alleging that it was covered in oil and water at the time. The Defendant argued that the Claimant had failed to follow the correct disembarking procedures, was carrying a heavy load which caused the fall, and was himself responsible for the cleanliness of the vessel. The case settled on a full liability value of £55,000, subject to a 60% deduction for contributory negligence.
• A case in which the Defendant's unsafe working practices are alleged to have caused a serious spinal injury to the Claimant which renders him unable to work for the rest of his life. The Claimant requires ongoing pain management as a result of his symptoms.
• A case in which the Claimant was hit by a vehicle travelling at speed while using a zebra crossing, resulting in permanent injuries to her back, neck and hip as well as substantial scarring.
• A case in which the Claimant was struck in the head by a falling wooden plank, causing him orthopaedic, neurological and ophthalmic injuries as well as a consequential diagnosis of chronic pain.
• A case in which the Claimant suffered multiple lacerations to the face and a subcutaneous haematoma in her shin. The Claimant has been left with scarring in 3 locations, requiring extensive plastic surgery to resolve.
• An accident abroad in which a claim was pursued under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992. The Claimants became trapped in a burning hotel in Spain and were exposed to smoke for a prolonged period of time which exacerbated pre-existing medical conditions.
• A case in which the Claimant suffered a severe Orthopaedic Injury after which he was diagnosed with dementia, leading to issues with lack of capacity and potential Court of Protection involvement in the management of damages.

Tax

Harry has a broad practice in tax. He has experience in both contentious and non-contentious matters, and acts on behalf of both taxpayers and the revenue. He has experience in Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax, and overseas issues such as the Transfer of Assets Abroad Regime. 

Harry is currently instructed on behalf of the Taxpayer in the Supreme Court proceedings in Professional Game Match Officials Limited v HMRC (led by Jonathan Peacock KC).

Harry was instructed on behalf of the taxpayer in both the Court of Appeal and Upper Tribunal hearings in HMRC v Kickabout Productions Limited, which concerned the correct application of the Ready Mixed Concrete test in IR35 cases (led by Jonathan Peacock KC in the Court of Appeal and by Georgia Hicks in the Upper Tribunal). 

Harry was instructed on behalf of the revenue in the Upper Tribunal hearing in Daarasp and anor v HMRC which concerned the application of the Ramsay principles to determine whether expenditure was 'incurred on' the acquisition of software rights as well as the construction of a closure notice for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (led by Aparna Nathan KC).

Harry’s recent advisory work includes:

• Advising on the SDLT consequences of the purchase of a property which included a number of separate buildings and an annex to the main building, giving rise to issues as to whether the property was non-residential and the extent to which it would qualify for multiple dwellings relief.
• Providing advice concerning the repayment of an interest free loan by an offshore trust, giving rise to issues under the Transfer of Assets Regime and the repayment of a debt, and the meaning of a "debt on a security" under the TCGA 1992.
• Advising (as junior to Marika Lemos) on the unwinding of a structure involving multiple offshore trusts, sub-trusts and companies, giving rise to numerous issues including the application of part 7A of ITEPA, the Transfer of Assets Regime, Capital Gains Tax and SDLT.

Harry has recently been instructed in a number of tax cases in the First-Tier Tribunal on behalf of the revenue including:

• An alleged tax avoidance scheme which sought to dispose of trust property in the UK and acquire similar trust property offshore to avoid a charge to inheritance tax of around 2.4 million pounds (led by Marika Lemos).
• An alleged tax avoidance scheme which sought to avoid capital gains tax by relocating a trust through different offshore jurisdictions shortly before and after disposing of valuable assets (led by Chris Stone).
• An alleged tax avoidance scheme which sought to artificially engineer capital losses to reduce a charge to capital gains tax of around seven hundred thousand pounds (led by Marika Lemos).
• An alleged tax avoidance scheme intended to circumvent capital gains tax in which the issues involve the identification of a "qualifying option" under s.143 TCGA 1992 and application of the Penalties Regime under both the Finance Act 2007 and the Taxes Management Act 1970 (led by Marika lemos). 

Clinical Negligence

Harry accepts instructions in all areas of clinical negligence. Although he most commonly receives instructions from Claimants, he is comfortable acting for both claimants and defendants and is regularly instructed on behalf of NHS trusts around the Country in the Employment Tribunal.

Harry’s practice involves instructions on both County Court and High Court matters, as well as in disputed inquests. He is comfortable with matters that are both factually and legally complex.

His recent instructions include:

• A fatal accident where the claimant died as a consequence of her GP refusing to prescribe her with anticoagulant medication. Harry represented the family of the bereaved at a 2 day inquest.
• A case in which the Claimant alleges that the failure to seek appropriate specialist input led to the stillbirth of her child. The Claimant is said to have suffered severe psychiatric injuries as a result.
• A case in which the Claimant’s treatment while under anaesthetic is alleged to have been directly inconsistent with the treatment plan of her treating consultant and was not the procedure she was consented for.
• A case in which the Claimant alleges that her severed tendons initially went undetected upon examination, which delay in diagnosis and treatment affected the severity of her long-term symptoms.

Investigations

Harry has experience in conducting internal investigations.

Recent investigations in which he has been instructed include the following:

• An investigation into an allegation raised by two employees that they were being bullied by their manager.
• An investigation into an allegation that an employee had been abusing drugs whilst at work. The same complainant also raised complaints about how she had been treated by her employer after previous disciplinary proceedings in which she was a witness, which Harry investigated as part of the same process.
• An investigation made by the mother of a young child after her request to change working hours was refused. The investigation included consideration of whether there had been maternity discrimination, given the recent changes to the complainant’s childcare situation.

Off-payroll working (IR35)

Harry is currently instructed on behalf of the Taxpayer in the Supreme Court proceedings in Professional Game Match Officials Limited v HMRC (led by Jonathan Peacock KC). That case concerns the employment status of football referees (for tax purposes) and gives rise to issues including the nature of mutuality of obligations and control for the purpose of the Ready Mixed Concrete test.  

Harry acted for the taxpayer in HMRC v Kickabout Productions Ltd  in the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal (led by Jonathan Peacock KC). The case concerned a number of issues including the proper application of the Ready Mixed Concrete test and the proper construction of hypothetical contracts of employment for the purposes of IR35.

Harry has previously assisted Marika Lemos on behalf of a taxpayer in preparing pre-action correspondence in relation to a dispute with HMRC over the application of the IR35 provisions.

Harry also has experience of worker and employee status issues in the context of Employment Tribunal litigation and is able to draw upon experience of disputes in both revenue and employment cases.

Tax

Colm acts for both taxpayers and HMRC. He has experience in the First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal, High Court (Administrative Court), Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

Colm’s recent and ongoing experience includes:

• Instructed (led by Akash Nawbatt KC) to advise on potential DTA arguments.
• [X] v HMRC (led by Marika Lemos) – ongoing lead appeal on an SDLT sub-sale avoidance scheme, concerning ss.45 and 75A FA 2003 and Ramsay.
• Northern Light Solutions Ltd v HMRC (led by Christopher Stone) – ongoing UT appeal concerning IR35.
• Watts v HMRC (led by Aparna Nathan KC) – ongoing UT appeal concerning the availability of relief under para.14A, Sch.13, FA 1996 for the acquisition of interest strips as part of tax planning.
• [Z] v HMRC – urgent application for a partial closure notice, raising issues of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, s.3/13 TCGA and the UK/Luxembourg DTA.
• Roger Preston Group Ltd v HMRC [2021] UKFTT [X] (led by Jolyon Maugham KC) – availability of a deduction for corporation tax purposes for the amortisation of acquired goodwill, analysis of the nature of a licence, effect of FRS and IFRS standards.
• Fowler v HMRC [2020] UKSC 22, [2020] 1 WLR 2227 (led by Akash Nawbatt KC) – meaning of ‘employment’ for DTA purposes, effect of deeming in s.15 ITTOIA.

IR35 and Employment Status

Colm has experience advising on and litigating IR35 issues. As a tax and employment practitioner, Colm is well-placed to advise on the range of issues which clients and fee-payers face in structuring their arrangements to meet the challenges of the changes to IR35. Colm’s experience includes:

• Northern Light Solutions Ltd v HMRC (led by Christopher Stone) – ongoing UT appeal concerning IR35.
• Big Bad Wolff Ltd v HMRC [2019] UKUT 121 (TCC), [2019] STC 978 – interaction of IR35 and the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978.
• Advising a professional medical body on the applicability of IR35 to numerous contractors, including advice on who the correct ‘client’ was for IR35 purposes and how to mitigate the risk of future liabilities.
• Advising an individual contractor/PSC on the applicability of IR35 to the arrangements as well and advising on the structuring and drafting of settlement agreements, side agreements and indemnities, to address the reallocation of risk resulting from the changes to IR35.
• Advising a private sector engager on whether various arrangements were caught by IR35 and whether a contractor was an employee for tax purposes.
• Advising a medical membership organisation on the application of IR35 to a standard form contract for members as well as the enforceability and drafting of tax indemnities.
• Advising an engager on the identity of the ‘client’ and re-drafting tax indemnities.
• Advising (with Marika Lemos) a union negotiating with HMRC on the drafting of guidance to members on their employment status.
• Advising (with Marika Lemos) a union on the enforceability of deductions clauses and indemnities in contracts with its members.

Residence/Domicile

• Advising (with Barrie Akin) on the domicile of a high net-worth individual with links to Gibraltar and the UK.
• Kennedy v HMRC (led by Akash Nawbatt KC and Christopher Stone) - multi-million pound residence appeal which was also concerned with the correct application of the UK-Spain DTA. The taxpayer withdrew his appeal on the fourth day of a two-week hearing.
• Mackay v HMRC [2018] UKUT 378 (TCC), [2019] STC 83 (led by Christopher Stone) - UT appeal and parallel judicial review of the FTT’s finding that the taxpayer was ordinarily resident in the UK ([2017] UKFTT 441 (TC)).
• Hough v HMRC (led by Christopher Stone) - FTT residence and ordinary residence  appeal and a parallel judicial review concerning IR20.
• Peck v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 770 (led by Christopher Stone) - FTT residence appeal.

SDLT

Colm is regularly instructed to advise on the planning and consequences of land transactions for SDLT purposes. Recent experience includes:

• [X] v HMRC (led by Marika Lemos) – ongoing lead appeal on an SDLT sub-sale avoidance scheme, concerning ss.45 and 75A FA 2003 and Ramsay, including a challenge to the validity of discovery assessments.
• [Y] v HMRC (led by Marika Lemos) – ongoing appeal on an SDLT sub-sale avoidance scheme, concerning ss.45 and 75A and Ramsay, including a challenge to the validity of discovery assessments.
• Acting for a firm of solicitors defending a claim of professional negligence for an alleged failure to advise on the availability of multiple dwellings relief. Claim withdrawn upon receipt of the Defendant’s skeleton argument.
• Advising a firm of solicitors in a professional negligence claim by former clients concerning the applicability of the 3% surcharge and the availability of a late claim for relief.
• Advising a purchaser on the availability of multiple dwellings relief, including novel points on the issue of a trespasser as being in ‘possession’ for the purposes of substantial performance.
• Links to a webinar which Colm provided with Barrie Akin on the meaning of ‘garden or grounds’ in s.116 FA 2003 can be found here. 

Professional Negligence

• Acting for a firm of solicitors defending a claim of professional negligence for an alleged failure to advise on the availability of multiple dwellings relief. Claim withdrawn upon receipt of the Defendant’s skeleton argument.
• Advising a firm of solicitors in a professional negligence claim by former clients concerning the applicability of the 3% surcharge and the availability of a late claim for relief.
• Advising a wealth management firm in a professional negligence claim arising from an alleged failure to apply for fixed protection 2012 in respect of the claimant’s various pension schemes.

Other

• Colm has successfully appeared for the taxpayer in the FTT in applications to make late appeals. Colm also has experience of appeals against penalties.
• Colm is the contributing editor of the ‘Taxation of Employment Income’ chapter in Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law.

Employment

Colm has a busy Employment practice, both in litigation and advisory work. He acts for both employees and employers. He is instructed by clients who range from large retailers, a S&P 500 indexed technology solution provider, universities and other third level institutions, schools, professional medical bodies and construction companies.

Colm is the contributing editor of the ‘Taxation of Employment Income’ chapter in Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law.

Litigation

Colm’s Employment Tribunal work involves regular multi-day discrimination and whistleblowing claims. Recent experience includes:

• [X] v Network Rail – six-day hearing concerning multiple disability discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages.
• Crawford v Image IT Ltd [2021] – two-day employment status preliminary hearing.
• Roganovic v iPLATO [2021] – five-day final hearing concerning age discrimination, protected disclosure detriments and dismissal and wrongful dismissal.
• Meshram v (1) TATA Consultancy Services Ltd and (2) Enterserv UK Ltd [2021] – four-day final hearing concerning protected disclosure dismissal, race discrimination, and victimization claims.
• Butti v Kier Ltd [2020] – four-day preliminary hearing concerning jurisdiction/time limits, ACAS certificates, strike-out, and abuse of process.

Advisory

As a tax and employment practitioner, Colm is well-placed to advise on the range of issues which clients and fee-payers face in structuring their arrangements to meet the challenges of the changes to IR35 and employment status more generally. Colm’s experience includes:

• Advising (with Andrew Burns QC) a national courier company on the applicability of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, including the risks of discrimination claims.
• Advising a professional medical body on the applicability of IR35 to numerous contractors, including advice on who the correct ‘client’ was for IR35 purposes and how to mitigate the risk of future liabilities
• Advising an individual contractor/PSC on the applicability of IR35 to the arrangements as well and advising on the structuring and drafting of settlement agreements, side agreements and indemnities, to address the reallocation of risk resulting from the changes to IR35.
• Advising a private sector engager whether various arrangements were caught by IR35 and whether a contractor was an employee for tax purposes.
• Advising a medical membership organisation on the application of IR35 to a standard form contract for members as well as the enforceability and drafting of tax indemnities.
• Advising an engager on the identity of the ‘client’ and re-drafting tax indemnities.
• Advising (with Marika Lemos) a union negotiating with HMRC on the drafting of guidance to members on their employment status.
• Advising (with Marika Lemos) a union on the enforceability of deductions clauses and indemnities in contracts with its members.

Professional Negligence

Colm has experience of acting for and advising those in receipt of professional negligence claims in the tax context. Colm’s experience includes:

Acting for a firm of solicitors defending a claim of professional negligence for an alleged failure to advise on the availability of multiple dwellings relief. Claim withdrawn upon receipt of the Defendant’s skeleton argument.

Advising a firm of solicitors in a professional negligence claim by former clients concerning the applicability of the 3% surcharge and the availability of a late claim for relief.

Advising in a professional negligence claim arising from an alleged failure by a wealth management firm to apply for fixed protection 2012 in respect of the claimant’s pension schemes.

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Over the last 7 years Paul has been involved in a series of long Chancery trials and disputed Unfair Prejudice Petitions, as well as international and domestic arbitrations. Other work includes insolvency-related matters, partnership, shareholder, internal company as well as contractual disputes and professional negligence claims arising out of such disputes.

Recent commercial cases

• Re E Company - (2023) Advising on merits and taking steps to enforce security provided in respect of a loan used to finance a religious school. 
• Re D Company - (2023) A dispute about a shareholder and staff diverting cash income away from the Company and seeking to exclude the director from the managing decisions and the operations of the Company. 
• Re B Company - (2022)  A dispute about Company monies being diverted by directors to other third party accounts and then refusing to return the monies and account for all monies and interest owed to the Company. 
• Re C Company - (2021) A dispute about allegations by 2 directors against each other in respect of the diversion of company monies and misuse of company funds and the failure to account for such monies. 
• Re A Company : Unfair Prejudice Petition - (2020) Disputes between divorcing directors about the running of a company and its finances and the commercial decisions that the Company should make. 
• Re B Company: Unfair Prejudice Petition - (2020) Disputes between extended family members about the operation of a family business with allegations of misuse of companies money and mis-management.  
• Re A Company - (2020) A dispute arising from allegations of fraud and concealment in the context of a company sale and a warranty claim.  
• Re AA Corporation (2018) - Advising on dispute concerning a contract for supply of over 1000 miles of pipe line.
• Re AB Limited (2017) - Advising on a warranty claim and the consequences of the liquidation of the vendor and guarantor.
• Re AC Limited (2017) - Advising on Claims by Company to protect employees from harassment.
• Stanbic Bank Ghana v Rajkumar Impex Private (2017) - Obtaining judgment for over US$11Million on a claim based on a Deed where the Defendant based in India decided to ignore the English proceedings.
• Re AD LLP (2017) - Advising on terms of LLP for an Investment house in the context of leaver provisions.
• Re AE Limited (2017) - Advising on issues arising from ECGD agreements with UK Export Finance and possibly future liabilities.
• Re BB Company and Charity (2017) - Advising on the implications of attempted changes to the purpose and operation of a Charity and Company.
• RE BC Limited (2017) - Advising on the terms of the Settlement Deed in respect of claims made against a CFO of a Venture Capital Provider.
• Re BD LLP (2017) - Advising on terms to settle claims made by a departing Member and allegations of diverting funds.
• Re BE Limited (2017) - Advising directors on allegations by shareholders that they were failing to take steps to protect company assets.
• Re BF LLP - Advising Members of a Solicitors LLP about remedies for wrongful acts of other Members
• Re CC Limited (2017) - Advising director on claim by Liquidator that company funds misused by him.
• Re CD Limited (2017) - Advising on sums due to a receiver after appointment over a business sunning a care home
• RE DB Limited (2017) - Advising a company when a buy back of shares had not complied with Companies Act 1985
• Re EE LLP (2017) - Advising Solicitor Members of a LLP on their rights under proposed changes to the LLPs that owned or run the Firm
• Re FF LLP (2017) - Advising a departing Member of a LLP of Solicitors on her rights and obligations under the Agreement.
• Re A Firm of Solicitors (2017) - Advising a Partner on the merits of a claim to remove another Partner and options.
• Re HH Limited (2017) - Advising a Company with regard to allegations of inducing a breach of contract and duties of confidentiality.
• Re A Dentists Partnership (2017) - Advising a departing Partner on his rights and liabilities under the Deed.
• Re II Limited (2016) - Advising company directors on allegations of financial misconduct made against them  
• Re JJ Limited (2016) - Advising as to claims against an agent for diversion of funds after sales of relevant goods.
• Re KK Limited (2016) - Advising a Company as to its rights to exercise a lien over Shares
• Re LL Limited (2016) - Advising a company about the consequences of an unlawful distribution
• Re MM Limited (2016) - Advising a mining company about its rights under an agreement concerning 2 Gold Mines in Mali and the merits of an Arbitration Claim
• Re NN Limited (2016) - Advising a Company from Mauritius on the merits of a LCIA claim concerning a Funding Agreement
• Re PP LLP (2016) - Advising on merits of a claim by a departing Member and impact of alleged anticipated claims on recovery of capital and current account.
• RE Joint Venture (2016) - Advising on merits of claim arising from a Venture concerning Land in Chennai India
• Re Multi Party Claim (2015) - advising on issues arising from the liquidation of a party and the related insured and uncovered claims.
• Re a Property (2015) - advising with regard to the issues arising from the administration of a series of companies developing a multi-million pound site.
• A v A British Overseas Territory (2015) - contractual claim arising out of oil exploration.
• Company in Liquidation v B (2015) - defeating a claim by liquidators as well as obtaining a costs order against the liquidators themselves.
• A v B (2014) - substantial dispute concerning bank’s failure to convert sterling at the time requested before a fall in the market.
• A v B (2013) - dispute about a bank manager who was lending monies to bank customers at higher rates than offered by his employer after he rejected their formal loan applications.

International:

• Advising in disputes in Malaysia about issues concerning English Law or English Law Concepts including Federal Court (i.e. Apex Court decisions)
• A v B (2014) - Federal Court case about need for finality and inconsistent decisions.
• C v D (2014) - Federal Court case about Equitable Damages and measure of damages against a trespasser.

Fraud

• Re A v B (2017) - Advising on dispute with allegations that properties had been transferred as part of a fraudulent scheme
• Re AA Limited (2017) - Advising on claim based on fraudulent misrepresentation on sale of a company
• Re AB LLP (2017) - Advising on claim against Members who were diverting funds and clients of the LLP
• Re BB Limited (2017) - Advising directors on allegations that they were misappropriating company funds and misusing company assets
• CC v DD (2016) - Advising on claims based on conspiracy and diverting contracts from Company
• Re Accountant Partnership (2016) - Advising partner on fraud by partner and recovering assets
• Re Solicitors Partnership (2016) - Advising partner on misappropriation of monies by fellow partner
• EE v FF (2016) - Advising on claims arising from wrongful use of a Power of Attorney and abuse of Position
• Re a PLC (2015) - complex dispute about a substantial PLC involving serious allegations involving a senior director and millions of pounds of missing funds.
• A v B (2015) - obtaining enforcement of judgment by setting aside a sham transfer.
• A V B (2015) - dispute about false Silver Hallmarks.
• Mead v Simcocks (2014) - complex dispute where Executors were found to have removed and hidden in excess of £400,000 of cash so as to frustrate claim and avoid tax liability.
• A Ltd V B Ltd & B (2014) - multi million pound claims for Breach of Agreements and fraud.
• Re a Company (2014) - claim against Senior Director for removing company assets and under declaring income.
• Re Spearmint Rhinos (2013) - allegations of fraud and dishonest receipt.
• A v B (2013) – representing shareholders on claims arising from monies being diverted to other companies beyond the control of the main shareholders.
• A v B (2013) - disputing fraudulent claim for over of £500,000 worth of alleged works and services allegedly provided.
• A v B (2013) - advising on a claim against a struck off solicitor who had diverted substantial funds for own benefit.
• Re Topworkman.com Limited (2011) - allegations of fraudulent misrepresentations.
• JD Weatherspoon PLC v Van Ber Berg [2009] EWHC 639 Ch - fraud by land agents over JD Wetherspoon chain and the duties owed by directors to clients of their company.

Recent Unfair Prejudice Petitions

• Re AA Limited (2017) - Advising on an unfair prejudice petition where petitioner forced to leave and attempts to reduce shareholding.
• Re BB Limited (2016) - Advising on merits of claim after dismissal of Petitioner as employee
• Re a Company (2015) - advising on the appropriate remedies for the actions of the Board of the Holding Company Board and sister companies.
• Re a Company (2015) - advising on a petition based on exclusion with dispute as to validity of shareholding.
• Re a Company (2015) - advising on status and effect of leaver provisions and impact on section 994 Petition.
• Re a Company (2014) - advising on merits of a petition commenced after shareholder/director removed due to gross misconduct.
• In the Matter of NCS Holdings (UK) Limited (2013) - a Section 994 Petition that raised issues with regard to the conduct of subsidiary companies and the appropriate remedy.
• In the Matter of Kilopress Ltd (2010) - dealt with the impact of Part 36 Offers in the context of Petitions.
• In the Matter of CV Holdings (2010) - dealt with refusal to create a level playing field of information and conflicts between the petitioners.

Recent Chancery disputes

• Re AAA Deceased (2017) - Dispute about Estate with allegations that a Will had been lost or destroyed
• M K Patel v B Patel and others [2017] EWHC 1398 - Dispute concerning allegations in respect of a worldwide Estate worth many millions of pounds.  Claim against a property in England defeated and claim for a worldwide account not accepted by the Court.
• Re Estate of BBB (Deceased) (2017) - Dispute about Estate and whether married couple still lived as man and wife and possible Inheritance Act Claim.
• RE Estate of H S Simcock (2017) -Dispute about an application to vary an Order made as a result of an Application under the Inheritance Act where increased tax liability on the estate as a result of incorrect IHT returns being made by earlier executors
• Re Estate of CCC (Deceased) (2017) - Advising of merits of claims that family members had taken money and assets from unwell mother.
• Re Estate of DDD (Deceased) (2016) - Advising on merits of claims arising from Executors refusal to provide accurate information about Estate and their decision to allow a claim by the Estate to be struck out
• Re Estate of EEE (2016) - Advising on possible claims arising from relative with Dementia making substantial presents to friends
• Re Estate of FFF (2016) - Advising on a claim under the Inheritance Act by adult child
• Re Estate of GGG (2016) - Advising on claim based on allegations of sibling excluding contact with parents
• Re a Property (2015) - a complex dispute conserving estoppels arising due to rent agreements before purchase of property.
• P v P (2015) - multi party dispute with allegations concerning allegedly multi-million point estate spread around many jurisdictions and applications re foreign executors.
• Re Noddings (2015) - attempts made to remove executor by token applicants directed by the killer of the deceased.
• Harts v Burbidge [2013] EWHC 1628 (Ch) and Court of Appeal [2014] EWCA Civ 992 - challenges to life time gifts made by deceased to her daughter.
• Parkinson v Fawdon [2009] EWHC 1953 Ch - Court's ability to construe or rectify a will when the named executor did not exist.
• Noddings v Noddings (2013) - allegations against executors with regard to dissipation of assets and failure to insure estate property.
• Re An Estate (2015) - extracting estate accounts from reluctant executors.
• Re an Inheritance Act Claim (2015) - advising on claim by estranged step daughter claiming via Estate of Mother.
• Re an Inheritance Act Claim (2015) - advising on claim by widow and stepchildren against adult children following a badly drafted will and agreement.
• Re an Inheritance Claim (2014) - advising on claim by cohabitee against adult children involving missing assets.
• Re an Estate (2014) - equitable claim for compensation by Legacy Hunters.
• Re A Partnership (2014) - claims arising from dishonest acts of deceased partners discovered after death.
• Re an Incorporated Association (2014) - disputes about operation of Articles and termination provisions.

Earlier cases

• Jemma Trust v Kippax Beamont Lewis [2005] EWCA Civ 248 - Court of Appeal decision about solicitors negligence in Court of Protection Application.
• Clinicare v Orchard [2004] EWHC 1964 QB - misrepresentation claim about the treatment of dry rot.
• Colonial Finance Limited v KSC Trading [2003] EWCA Civ 1593 - Court of Appeal decision about construction of a commercial agreement.
• Bellamy v Central Sheffield University (2003) - Court of Appeal decision about a failed Wasted Costs Order and the costs.
• Sharif v Garrett [2001] EWCA Civ 1269 - Court of Appeal decision about assessing loss of chance in a solicitors negligence case.
• Barratt Homes v BBF Consultancy [2001] EWCA Civ 1155 - Court of Appeal decision about whether exchange of letters created a contract.
• Profinance Trust v Gladstone [2001] EWCA Civ 1031 - Court of Appeal decision about award of interest in Unfair prejudice petitions.
• Scottish Equitable v Derby [2001] EWCA Civ 369 - Court of Appeal decision about change of position defence and payments made under mistake.
• Hylton Potts v Gemshore (2001) - application to rectify charge register as charge a sham.
• Tanfern Ltd V Cameron-MacDonald (2000) - leading Court of Appeal Decision on Appeals under the CPR and related Procedure.
• Roberts v Bentley Jennison (2000) - Court of Appeal decision revoking permission to appeal granted when Court not informed of all facts.
• Target Holding v Oxborough (2000) - Court of Appeal decision about strike out for want of prosecution.
• Ebert v Birch (1999) - Court of Appeal decision about vexatious litigants.

Employment

Paul advises on all aspects of non-contentious and contentious employment matters, representing clients in the Employment Tribunal and related High Court Litigation. This includes advising clients in advance of potential issues arising; preparing clients faced with the challenges of starting a business or advising with regard to the demise of a business and the challenges created by TUPE and the Acquired Rights Directive. In the past he has also advised on large scale collective redundancy plans, high level discrimination claims as well as the enforcement of restrictive covenants and garden leave clauses.

Employment disputes include:

• Many TUPE issues arising out of the relation between English subsidiaries of American/other Parent Companies and the problems of explaining TUPE to non-European employers.
• ET Jurisdiction re employee working on a ship, yet never worked in the UK.
• Determining the apportionment of liability under TUPE in respect of a fluctuating work force.
• Claims of senior director to retirement package and shareholding where disputes as to correct version of agreement.
• Claims arising in multi jurisdictions due to 5 agreements about or related to the employment of CEO with different applicable law.
• Claims relating to “forced” relocation to Germany and use of without prejudice communications.
• Claims of discrimination and bullying.
• Claim arising from demise of Lehman Brothers in administration.

Recent employment cases

• A v B and others - (2020) Claims by a global travel firm against employees and officers of the Company with allegations of diverting work and setting up a rival business.C v D - (2021) A dispute about whether an agent was an employee and whether his conduct was such that it was possible to terminate his contract and his contractual entitlements.
• E v F - (2022) Claim against Employer on the basis that increases in salary and other benefits had not been made in the context of the contractual terms and the failure to conduct internal hearings properly.
• G v H - (2022) Dispute about how a party advising on claims could use allegedly confidential information obtained in respect of similar disputes and whether he could be prevented from doing such.
• Re AA Limited (2017) - Advising on claims made by a CEO who was alleging constructive dismissal.
• Re AB Limited (2017) - Advising on allegations of financial misconduct made against a CFO
• Re Mrs AA (2017) - Advising client who had been attacked in the street and her employers had not allowed her time to recover from her ordeal
• Re Mrs BB (2017) - Advising client about claim to be advanced after bullying by CEO
• Re DD Limited (2017) - Advising company on rights of termination on when Executive employed under Scottish and English Law and was party to an agreement subject to the Laws of the City of Zug
• Re EE Limited (2016) - Advising on rights to enforce an agreement when Executive based in Mozambique
• CLC v BM (2015) - claim involving allegations that senior employee diverted contract to new prospective employer and used confidential information.
• A v B (2015) - multi-million pound dispute about impact of Bad Leaver provisions.
• Akhter Computers v Smith & P (2015) - opposed applications for injunctions by employer and had case struck out for repeated breaches of Orders and Directions.
• Claims by English Senior Manager that discriminated by non-UK Management.
• SSD v PVT & A (2014) - dispute about construction of employment terms and related duties.
• A v B (2014) - application to stay ET proceedings pending chancery action for misfeasance.
• C v D (2014) - application to stay ET proceedings pending unfair prejudice petition determination.

Employment

Having served as a member of a disciplinary panel for a major public sector employer and as a former union representative at a national charity, Matthew has wide experience of employment law from the perspectives of both Claimant and Respondent.

Matthew is regularly instructed in the Employment Tribunal by some of the largest employers in the UK, along with several multi-national corporations. He has appeared in cases involving unfair dismissal, employee status, whistleblowing, TUPE, and all forms of discrimination. Hearings in which he has been solely instructed have included multi-week cases involving numerous allegations of discrimination, along with cases involving complex areas of health & safety, working time and trade union detriment/dismissal, as well as TUPE. He has developed a particular specialism in disability discrimination and cases involving mental health issues.

Matthew has also been instructed on several occasions in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, including in matters heard before Langstaff J (former President of the EAT) and HHJ Eady (now Eady J). Most recently, he was successful in persuading the EAT to overturn a significant portion of a quantum award made incorrectly at first instance.

Employment matters in which Matthew has been instructed include:

K v B & Ors: Acting for the Respondent in a multi week financial services disability discrimination claim

N v C & Ors: Acting for the Respondent as junior counsel to Adam Solomon KC in a multi week financial services whistleblowing claim

W v A: Acting for the Respondent in a multi week disability discrimination claim

C v SW: Acting for the Respondent in a multi week disability discrimination and whistleblowing claim

S v E UK plc: Acting for the Respondent in a five day race discrimination claim

UNISON & Ors v L & Anor: Acting for the First Respondent in a complex TUPE case involving multiple Respondents and questions of trade union recognition

D v SL: Acting for the Claimant in a four day disability discrimination claim

C v E plc: Acting for the Respondent in a four day whistleblowing claim

Z v STM: Acting for the Respondent in a four day maternity discrimination claim

G v MCS: Acting for the Respondent in a four day race discrimination claim

Matthew also regularly appears in Preliminary Hearings (both private and public) within the Employment Tribunal and has provided pleadings and advice to Claimants and Respondents in a multitude of successfully settled claims which did not reach the final hearing stage.

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Matthew has appeared on numerous occasions in the High Court on commercial matters, successfully obtaining freezing injunctions for public sector clients and dealing with matters relating to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. He has also appeared on the Masters' Corridor of the Royal Courts of Justice in connection with charging orders, third party debt orders and orders for sale, and regularly appears in the County Court in commercial matters of all kinds. These include both fast-track and multi-track claims in contractual and property disputes, as well as multi-track costs and case management hearings.

Recently, Matthew has been instructed both to defend a claim of fraud against a corporate client on the multi-track and to represent the Defendant in a complex unjust enrichment claim. His experience in both employment and personal injury matters enable him to function particularly effectively in the cross-over between those areas and commercial law.

In addition to his own caseload, Matthew has been led on a range of commercial cases and has assisted members of chambers in matters ranging from contractual disputes to international arbitrations.

Investigations

Matthew has conducted independent investigations into disciplinary and grievance matters for a number of employers, ranging from small voluntary sector organisations to multi-million pound businesses. He is available to conduct interviews and compile reports both on a remote and in-person basis, depending on the requirements of the client. He is often asked to conduct such investigations when the matters concerned are sensitive and involve senior managers or directors.

Employment

Marianne is recognised as a leading junior by Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 in employment.

She practises all areas of industrial relations and employment law. She has experience beyond her level of call relating to industrial disputes and strike injunctions. She also has considerable experience of high-value and complex tribunal litigation acting for both claimants and respondents, as well as substantive appeals, in which she has appeared unled against leading employment silks. Her recent cases include claims relating to discrimination, equal pay, whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and the National Minimum Wage.

Her clients include multinational and FTSE 100 companies, government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts, charities, employers’ associations and other trade groups, senior executives and individuals. She also undertakes pro bono employment work under the auspices of ELAAS, Advocate and FRU.

Industrial Relations

Marianne has expertise in industrial relations matters in the High Court and Employment Tribunal. She has substantial experience of advising on and preparing for strike injunctions, replacement of striking workers with other staff, blacklisting and tactics for managing picket lines and protests. She frequently advises large employers about changing terms and conditions of employment, including strategies relating to termination/re-engagement, managing industrial action and restrictions on contractual changes in relation to collective bargaining (under s.145B TULRCA 1992).

Recent work includes:

• Trade Union v Employer (2022): advising an umbrella organisation about changing terms and conditions of employment across the industry (junior to Andrew Burns KC and Jesse Crozier).
• Trade Union v Employer (2020-22): advising and representing a large employer about changing terms and conditions of employment and defending Employment Tribunal litigation related to claims for unfair dismissal/discrimination and inducements relating to collective bargaining (junior to Andrew Burns KC).
• Birmingham City Council v (1) Unite the Union (2) Unison [2019] EWHC 478 (QB), [2019] IRLR 423: represented the claimant in an injunction application in respect of strike action brought by the Council’s Waste Service workers (junior to Andrew Burns QC and Alice Carse).
• Unite the Union v Birmingham City Council (2019): represented the defendant as junior counsel in an injunction application brought by the union to prevent the Council from implementing its contingency measures put in place in response to industrial action brought by workers in its Waste Service, which was an alleged breach of a collective agreement (junior to Andrew Burns KC).

Restrictive covenants and injunctions

Marianne has experience of advising both claimants and defendants in disputes relating to restrictive covenants, including issues concerning team moves, the use of confidential information by ex-employees and inducing breach of contract, as well as the construction of non-compete (and associated) covenants. She has assisted senior counsel in defending clients in relation to springboard and other injunctive relief. She understands the need for early, tactical advice to avoid need for expensive proceedings.

Discrimination

Marianne is a contributing editor to the chapter on Direct Discrimination in Discrimination Law (Bloomsbury Professional).

She has significant experience of conducting multi-week hearings on behalf of claimants and respondents in complex, high-value discrimination proceedings, including equal pay matters, in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Employment Tribunal.

Recent cases include:

• S v Nanoavionics UAB UK Ltd [2022] UKEAT 72: represented the respondent (a spacecraft engineering company) in the EAT concerning the correct approach to deposit order applications, in the context of ss.110-112 EqA 2010 claims.
• B v C (2022): representing the respondent (a multinational company) in the ET in an unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim arising out of changing terms and conditions of employment.
• O, L v FCDO (2022): represented the respondent government department in the ET in a wide-ranging race/sex discrimination and equal pay claim.
• W v CIBC (2022): represented the claimant (a senior banking executive) in the ET in a race/sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation claim.
• B-P v Palladium International Ltd (2021): represented the respondent (an international advisory company) in the ET in a maternity discrimination claim.

High value/complex unfair dismissals

Marianne frequently acts for claimants and respondents in high value/complex automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal claims. She has a particular interest in whistleblowing claims, having written extensively on the topic and contributed to ELA’s Working Party addressing the European Commission’s consultation on whistleblowing protection. She has experience of interim relief applications. She has also participated in related wrongful dismissal/breach of contracts proceedings in the Employment Tribunal and High Court.

Recent cases include:

• H v Chubb (2021): represented the respondent (a global fire safety/security company) in a whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal claim.
• W v Westbury Hotel (2021): represented the claimant (a Michelin starred chef) in an unfair dismissal claim in the hospitality industry.
• Doctor v NHS Trust (2020): represented the defendant NHS trust in a high value breach of contract claim.
• X & Y v Plc (2018): represented the respondent as a junior to Andrew Burns KC in a highly sensitive whistleblowing case involving interim relief proceedings and injunctive proceedings in relation to a dispute about reliance on highly privileged and confidential material arising out of an internal investigation.

Employment status and IR35

Marianne has a keen interest in employment status and has considerable experience of the area in the employment and tax context (see below), including recent appearances in the Court of Appeal (Kickabout Productions Ltd v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 502; Atholl House Productions Ltd v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 501). Her “in-depth knowledge and up-to-date advocacy on employment status issues is second-to-none at her level”. In particular, she has advised both organisations and individuals regarding the application of ‘worker’ status to the workforce at large, as well as the IR35 reforms in the private sector.

National Minimum Wage

Marianne has experience in advising clients regarding the potential underpayment of the NMW, including throughout ongoing HMRC investigations in very high value matters. Her advice has concerned both substantive issues, such as the calculation of the hourly pay rate, and practical matters, such as dealing with potential enforcement proceedings. She has also represented HMRC in NMW litigation before the Employment Tribunal.

She is also experienced in bringing proceedings on behalf of individuals in the Employment Tribunal and High Court against both employers and directors.

Other advisory work

Marianne has wide experience advising on employment-related issues, such as matters relating to TUPE, collective redundancies, claims relating to the furlough scheme and holiday pay/working time. She has been instructed to review a number of workplace policies for multinational and FTSE 100 companies.

Tax

Marianne accepts instructions from both HMRC and taxpayers in a contentious and advisory capacity. She has substantial tax litigation experience in the First-tier Tribunal (Tax), Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), High Court and Court of Appeal, and has appeared unled in complex appeals. Her practice is focused upon areas that cross over with her employment work, namely employment status and taxation of employment income, as well as residence matters and judicial review proceedings.

Employment income

She has particular expertise in IR35 and the agencies legislation, in which she is able to draw upon her experience of employment status cases in the Employment Tribunal context (see above). She is instructed by HMRC as junior counsel to Adam Tolley KC (Fountain Court Chambers) and Christopher Stone (Devereux), as well as being instructed as sole counsel in a number of high-profile cases involving the media industry and public sector. She also has experience of advising clients, including high net-worth individuals, agencies and end-users, regarding the IR35 reforms in the private sector.

Significant recent cases include:

• Kickabout Productions Ltd v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 502, [2022] STC 876; Atholl House Productions Ltd v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 501, [2022] STC 837: she successfully represented HMRC in appeals to the Court of Appeal in two cases heard by the same panel, which raised important issues relating to the correct approach to the issue of employment status, mutuality of obligations and the ‘business on own account’ test (junior to Akash Nawbatt KC and Christopher Stone in Kickabout; junior to Adam Tolley KC and Christopher Stone in Atholl House).
• RALC Consulting Ltd v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 702 (TC): she is representing HMRC in an appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerning the employment status of an IT consultant (junior to Christopher Stone).
• Basic Broadcasting Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 48 (TC): she is representing HMRC in an appeal concerning the employment status of an ITV sports and BBC radio presenter (junior to Adam Tolley KC).
• She has experience of advising and representing HMRC in other employment income-related matters, including the deductibility of employee expenses, treatment of student loan deductions and correct construction of s.15 ITTOIA 2005 relating to divers’ income. She also has wider experience of income tax issues, having represented HMRC in the Upper Tribunal in Qolaminejite v HMRC [2021] UKUT 118 (TCC), [2021] STC 1169, a matter concerning the burden of proof in tax appeals.

Residence

Marianne has experience of very high value residence cases. She successfully represented HMRC in Hargreaves v HMRC [2022] UKUT 34 (TCC), [2022] STC 455, an appeal to the Upper Tribunal in a matter worth over £80 million concerning a high net-worth individual, which raised discovery issues. She has also represented HMRC in proceedings relating to whether a high net-worth individual was entitled to claim the remittance basis.

Judicial review

She has public law experience, having represented and advised HMRC in respect of judicial review proceedings brought in the Administrative Court in the tax context. In particular, she has appeared in the Administrative Court in proceedings relating to the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001, the Managed Service Company provisions within ITEPA 2003 and tax investigations under Code of Practice 9. She has also provided independent, open advice to the Administrative Court concerning whether HMRC complied with its duty of candour in judicial review proceedings.

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Marianne is regularly instructed in an advisory capacity and as an advocate in commercial litigation and disputes. Much of her commercial practice involves professional negligence and insurance work (see below). Her more general commercial matters include business, property, consumer and other contractual disputes in the county courts and High Court.

This includes:

• Striking out and obtaining summary judgment in respect of a multi-million pound claim brought against a firm of solicitors.
• Striking out and obtaining summary judgment with regards to a high value claim brought against the operators of the National Lottery.
• Appearing in the county court to defend a claim of misrepresentation and breach of contract against an energy company.
• Applying for civil restraint orders in respect of vexatious litigants.
• Setting aside default judgment.
• Making and resisting applications for relief from sanctions.
• Resisting applications to set aside statutory demands.
• Securing a winding up order on behalf of a creditor in the Companies Court.
• Restoring a company to the Register of Companies in the Companies Court.

She has been also led on a variety of commercial cases and assisted members of chambers with international arbitrations and mediations. She also has experience of commercial injunctions. Notably, she assisted Shaen Catherwood in obtaining a without notice injunction (from Birss J) and a costs order on the indemnity basis (from Mann J) in the Chancery Division against an ex-director of a large company in Friendly Pensions Ltd v Austin.

Professional Negligence

Marianne has worked on a range of professional negligence/liability disputes and has particular experience of claims against solicitors, barristers, accountants, conveyancers, valuers and insurance brokers. In particular, she has experience in negligence/liability cases involving solicitors and barristers in employment- and tax-related disputes, drawing upon her experience of these areas.

Marianne provides letters of claim and responses, pleadings, and advises on all aspects of a dispute (including policy coverage issues). She is an adept litigator and regularly instructed to appear in application hearings and CCMCs in professional negligence/liability matters. She has experience of striking out and obtaining summary judgment in respect of a multi-million pound claim brought against a firm of solicitors. She was also instructed as a junior to Richard Harrison in a high value accountant’s negligence/liability claim which raised complex points about accessory liability and unlawful means conspiracy.  

As a pupil, Marianne assisted:

• Andrew Burns KC in a solicitor’s negligence case involving the ex-Chairman of a Premier League football club.
• Robert Glancy KC in a barrister's negligence case.
• Richard Harrison in a high value mediation involving property valuers.

Investigations

Marianne has experience of conducting investigations for large multinational employers into grievances and whistleblowing claims brought by senior employees for regulatory compliance purposes. She has been involved in investigations concerning bullying and sexual harassment complaints for a world leading research company.

Marianne has also acted as an independent legal adviser to disciplinary panels in high profile and highly sensitive matters, involving allegations of serious sexual misconduct and discrimination. She frequently advises employers about ongoing grievance and disciplinary investigations prior to litigation.

Pro Bono

Marika is a member of the executive committee of Pro Bono Connect.

She accepts referrals from Advocate and the tax charities on all tax matters.

Her pro bono work includes successfully defending taxpayers in bankruptcy proceedings in the High Court against HMRC, representing an impecunious taxpayer in his appeal against a c.£6 million charge to excise duty, representing three BBC presenters in their appeals concerning IR35, and representing Mr Wilkes in Wilkes v HMRC both in the Upper Tribunal and in the Court of Appeal.

She is also a FRU representative, mostly representing clients in social security appeals.

Off-payroll working (IR35)

Marika has a significant IR35 litigation practice, acting for taxpayers, including a number of BBC and ITV presenters, and actors.

She was instructed by the appellants in Paya and others and Big Bad Wolff Productions. Leading Georgia Hicks in Paya and assisted by Colm Kelly in both matters. She also acts for HMRC.

 “Cuts straight to the point and considers the issue from every angle – thorough and concise”; “She is extremely capable, very hardworking and sensitive to the needs of significant litigation” - Tax, Legal 500 2020.

Employment

Bayo is ranked as a Leading Junior in employment by Legal 500 2022. 

Bayo is an experienced employment practitioner with a wealth of experience across the full range of workplace disputes for claimants and respondents. This includes TUPE, restrictive covenants and injunctions, whistleblowing, trade union disputes and claims regarding dismissal and discrimination.

Examples of recent cases and matters include:

• Acting for the successful Appellant before the EAT in Badara v Pulse Healthcare [2020] ICR 819.
• Acting for defendants in The Construction Industry Vetting Information Group Litigation. Currently instructed in ongoing related proceedings brought by additional claimants.
• Acting for the successful defendant in Buckley v Greenwood Academies Trust [2018] EWHC 2441 (Comm), a claim alleging civil fraud and breach of contract by a former employee against a multi academy trust.
• Acting for a respondent in a multi-day hearing against 15 claimants who brought claims for unpaid wages, redundancy pay and holiday pay following a disputed TUPE transfer. 

Click here for a copy of Bayo's article on the correct treatment of overtime payments for the purposes of holiday pay.

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Bayo has experience in a broad range of commercial disputes in the County Courts and High Court. He is available to accept instructions in all areas of commercial law.

Examples of recent cases and matters include:

• Acting for defendants in The Construction Industry Vetting Information Group Litigation - one of the Lawyer's Top 20 cases of 2016 - in which approximately 700 claimants broughts claims for defamation, unlawful means conspiracy, misuse of confidential and private information, and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. Currently instructed in ongoing related Part 20 proceedings.
• Appearing in the High Court to defend a claim of civil fraud and breach of contract against a multi-academy trust. 
• Appearing in the High Court to set aside an injunction against an energy company.
• Appearing for an energy company in the High Court in respect of a high value claim against multiple associated companies.
• Advising an oil and gas company on the appropriate means of enforcing a multi-million pound judgment.

Tax

Bayo has a broad tax practice, acting for HMRC and taxpayers.

Examples of recent cases and matters include:

• M v HM Revenue & Customs - Acting on behalf of HMRC in respect of an appeal to the FTT by a high profile taxpayer of assessments and penalties in respect of VAT, Income Tax and Capital Gains tax (led by Akash Nawbatt QC and Chris Stone)
• H & Others v HM Revenue & Customs – Instructed as junior Counsel for the appellant in respect of this FTT appeal (led by Jolyon Maugham QC) of a significant number of HMRC assessments of income tax, VAT, capital gains tax and corporation tax
• G v HM Revenue & Customs – Instructed as junior Counsel by HMRC in a residence FTT appeal (led by Chris Stone)
• HM Revenue & Customs v TGHCL (Commercial) Ltd – Instructed as junior counsel by HMRC (led by Marika Lemos) in an Upper Tribunal VAT appeal. Successfully defended an application by the Respondent for a protective costs order
• Hargreaves v HMRC – On behalf of HMRC, two day appeal in the UT concerning the issue of whether the FTT had erred in its decision that the question of the competence of HMRC’s discovery assessment should be determined at the substantive hearing.
• Daniel v HMRC – On behalf of HMRC, a one-day appeal to the FTT by the appellant to set aside the judgment of a differently constituted FTT in respect of a decision that the appellant was not UK resident in the relevant tax year and that a discovery assessment in the same year was valid.
• Glyn v HMRC – On behalf of HMRC, one-day appeal in the UT against the FTT’s refusal of permission to appeal.
• Trigg v HMRC – On behalf of HMRC, two day hearing in the FTT concerning the issue of whether certain securities were qualifying corporate bonds, such that any gain accruing on their disposal would be a chargeable gain.

Click here for a copy of Bayo's article in which he analyses the effect of the costs sharing decision in Eclipse 35 and considers a few methods to avoid paying the full costs of bundle preparation, pending the Supreme Court appeal.

Investigations

Bayo has conducted investigations for various organisations: this includes those within finance/accountancy, education, law and other sectors.

Bayo also has experience of conducting collective grievance investigations, his most recent involved complaints of sex and race discrimination within the education sector.

Employment

Ishaani undertakes High Court and employment tribunal work. Recently, she was successful in Wong v Basfar [2022] UKSC 20, in which the Supreme Court held that diplomatic immunity cannot defeat a claim by a victim of modern slavery.

She was recently instructed on an injunction concerning industrial action, on behalf of the defendants, in the High Court. She has also advised claimants and defendants on matters concerning breaches of restrictive covenants, TUPE transfers, and confidentiality.

Ishaani has extensive experience of equal pay work. She provided advice in this area to a public broadcaster, on an ongoing basis, over several months. She regularly appears as sole counsel in multi-day hearings. Recent cases have involved age, sex, sexual orientation and race discrimination, as well as gross misconduct dismissals for sexual harassment.

Ishaani conducts investigations, either as sole or junior counsel. She has acted as sole independent investigator for a regulatory body, and as junior counsel on investigations into public sector bodies and financial services institutions.

She acts for a wide range of clients, both claimant and respondent, including: the BBC, British Airways, British Telecommunications plc, Coca Cola European Partners, MacMillan Cancer Support, the General Dental Council, Lloyds of London, NHS Trusts, the NSPCC and the Security Industry Authority. She has acted for defendants in The Construction Industry Vetting Information Group Litigation with Christopher Stone.

In conjunction with Pro Bono Community, Ishaani has run seminars providing comprehensive training to junior lawyers assisting the pro bono departments of their firms, including CMS, Herbert Smith Freehills, and Shearman & Sterling.

Administrative and Public Law

Ishaani was appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel in March 2019 and undertakes a range of public law work through the Panel.

Ishaani also works with individual claimants, charities and NGOs. She intervened in the US Supreme Court on behalf of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in a case concerning a UK national facing the death penalty. The intervention addressed the right to a fair trial.

She intervened in the Economic Community of West African States Court of Justice, on behalf of the Media Legal Defence Initiative. The intervention addressed freedom of expression.

Ishaani is regularly instructed by HMRC in judicial review claims and cases involving human rights issues, such as when junior to Chris Stone, in the appeal against the decision of the FTT in Banks v HMRC, a case concerning allegations of political discrimination under Article 14 of the Human Rights Act, taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

She has advised and appeared in cases concerning the free movement of persons under Directive 2004/38/EC and the Immigration Regulations, before the Social Security and Immigration and Asylum Tribunal.

Ishaani acted as a junior junior in the Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation brought by over 40,000 claimants in respect of their experiences in Kenya in the 1950s. She assisted panel counsel in drafting individual defences, preparing cross-examination of test claimants and medical experts, as well as researching historical legislation, limitation issues and questions of international law.

Ishaani has contributed to the Annual Rule of Law Forum for South Eastern Europe, supported by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and attended by ECtHR judges, all levels of the judiciary, lawyers, and NGO workers from Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia.

Ishaani has written the following publications, presented before the Forum:

Freedom of Expression and its Relationship with the Right to Respect for Private Life and the Right to a Fair Trial: The jurisprudence of the ECtHR (2017) (contributor)  

The Prohibition against Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: The jurisprudence of the ECtHR (2018)

Children’s Rights: The jurisprudence of the ECtHR (2019). This overview addresses rights under EU law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as given effect to by ECtHR jurisprudence, in the areas of domestic violence, custody, criminal justice, asylum, trafficking, and access to court.

Ishaani was instrumental in establishing the European Human Rights Database for South East Europe.

Ishaani is a contributor to the Administrative Court Digest.

Tax

Ishaani is regularly instructed by HMRC in judicial review claims and cases involving human rights issues, such as when junior to Chris Stone, in the appeal against the decision of the FTT in Banks v HMRC, a case concerning allegations of political discrimination under Article 14 of the Human Rights Act, taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Investigations

Ishaani acts across employment, discrimination, administrative and public, human rights and tax law. She regularly conducts investigations, either as sole or junior counsel. She recently acted as sole independent investigator for a regulatory body, and as junior counsel on investigations into public sector bodies and financial services institutions.

Employment

Katya has established a busy employment practice acting for both claimants and respondents in all areas of employment work. She is regularly instructed in multi-day hearings concerning unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, employee status and all forms of discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

Before coming to the Bar Katya spent nine years at Cardiff University as a policy officer with responsibility for equality and diversity in education. During that time she was a volunteer caseworker for the University and College Union and represented the Union in the development of several University policies. She retains a particular interest in claims involving schools, colleges and universities.

Her publications include:

“Discrimination Law, Equality Law and Implicit Bias” with Roseanne Russell in Implicit Bias & Philosophy, Michael Brownstein & Jennifer Saul (eds) OUP 2016

Various articles and book reviews in the Discrimination Law Association journal ‘Briefings’, including case comments on Home Office (UK Border Agency) v Essop in the EAT, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court

Education

Katya is establishing a strong practice in education. She is regularly instructed in cases involving schools, colleges and universities, drafting pleadings and appearing in the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and in the county courts. 

Her previous career gives her particular familiarity with the higher education sector. She taught philosophy and formal logic at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and then spent nine years as a policy officer at Cardiff University with responsibility for implementing the Equality Act 2010 in its provision of education. During that time she was a member of the national advisory group for the Learning & Teaching section of the Quality Assurance Agency’s Quality Code for Higher Education.

She maintains her links with the sector and led a workshop on competence standards and curriculum design at the Equality Challenge Unit annual conference in November 2017.

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

As pupil to Richard Harrison Katya gained experience in a range of insurance and professional negligence matters.

She assisted Richard in C&S Associates UK Ltd v Enterprise Insurance Company PLC [2015] EWHC 3757 (Comm) which concerned a contractual dispute between a specialist motor insurer and a desktop claims handling firm. She also provided extensive research support in a marine insurance case raising questions about constructive total loss and the nature of valued policies.

Katya has acted in a number of contractual disputes in the county courts and accepts instructions in all areas of commercial work.

Tax

Katya is developing a practice in tax.

As pupil to Aparna Nathan KC and Akash Nawbatt KC Katya gained experience in tax litigation as well as a range of advisory matters, including employee benefit trusts, managed service companies, residence and domicile, inheritance tax, transfer of assets abroad and the settlements provisions.

Tax

Georgia is recognised as leading junior by both Legal 500 (VAT, Tier 2) and Chambers and Partners (Band 3), where she is described as “a rising junior with strong expertise in employment taxes”.

She has a strong practice in taxpayer litigation, regularly receiving instructions in the Court of Appeal, Upper Tribunal and First-tier Tribunal. Her main areas of specialism are employment-related taxes, residency and domicile, with a particular expertise in employment status and the applicability of the intermediaries legislation (known as IR35). She regularly represents and advises taxpayers on these issues. Appointed to the Attorney General's Panel of Counsel (B Panel), Georgia is also regularly instructed by HMRC, especially in cases involving residence and domicile issues, DOTAS applications, and Judicial Review claims.

IR35

Recent notable cases include:

• Gary Lineker And Danielle Bux T/A Gary Lineker Media v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 340 (TC) – the first case to consider the application of IR35 to a general partnership. Georgia was instructed by the taxpayer before the FTT, which allowed the appeal, finding that the IR35 provisions did not apply.
• Kickabout Productions Limited v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 502, [2022] All ER (D) 02 (May) – Georgia was instructed by the taxpayer in this appeal concerning the employment status of a well-known radio presenter. HMRC argued that the presenter would have been an employee such that the IR35 legislation applied and income tax and NICs were owed on sums paid via a personal service company. Read Georgia's Tax Journal article on this case here. 
• Christa Ackroyd Media v HMRC [2019] UKUT 326 (TCC), [2019] STC 2222 – Georgia was instructed as junior to Jolyon Maugham QC in this appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the FTT ([2018] UKFTT 0069; [2018] S.T.I. 907), which found that the IR35 legislation applied to Ms Ackroyd’s services supplied to the BBC.
• Paya, Willcox & Allday Media v HMRC (TC/2014/03148; TC/2014/06207; TC/2016/00837) – Georgia was instructed as junior to Jonathan Peacock QC (11 New Square) and Marika Lemos (Devereux) in these appeals concerning the employment status of television journalists paid through personal services companies whilst working with the BBC.

Taxation of Employees

Recent notable cases include:

• Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC – This appeal concerns the tax treatment and employment status of football referees. Whilst the appeal only concerned a group of some 40 match officials, the appeal has wider implications for referees across all tiers of English football (numbering some over 28,000  individuals) and across other sports. Having been successful before the FTT and UT, HMRC’s appeal to the CA was allowed. Read Georgia's Tax Journal article on this case here.
• Laing O’Rourke Services Ltd v HMRC - Georgia is instructed by the taxpayer in these joined appeals against HMRC’s decision not to refund NICs on sums paid to employees as car allowance payments (paid in respect of the use of a private car for work purposes). The taxpayers argue that as ‘relevant motoring expenditure’ within the meaning of the Social Security (Contribution) Regulations 2001, the sum equating to the ‘qualifying amount’ should be reimbursed under either reg 22A or para 7A of Schedule 3.
• EON (UK) Ltd v HMRC - Georgia is instructed by the taxpayer in this appeal concerning the tax treatment of certain ‘facilitation payments’ made to members of a defined benefit pension scheme when the terms of that scheme were changed. This appeal concerns the question of when payments are “from employment” and builds on a line of such cases in which Georgia has successfully appeared for both the taxpayer and Revenue, including Tottenham Hotspur Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKUT 453 (TCC); and Pettigrew v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 240 (TC).
• Pettigrew v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 240 (TC) – This case concerned the tax treatment of a payment made by the MOJ to a part-time employment judge in settlement of his claim for part-time worker discrimination. After a carefully reviewing the relevant authorities, the FTT determined that the payment fell to be taxed as earnings under s.62 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act (“ITEPA ”) 2003. This case has leant clarity to the taxation of discrimination damages relating to events that occurred during employment.
• Tottenham Hotspur Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKUT 453 (TCC); [2018] 4 W.L.R. 17; [2018] S.T.C. 81; [2017] B.T.C. 535; [2018] S.T.I. 90 – Georgia was led by Jolyon Maugham QC in this appeal before both the First- tier (Tax) Tribunal ([2016] UKFTT 389 (TC); [2016] SFTD 803; [2016] STI 2499) and the Upper Tribunal ([2017] UKUT 453 (TCC); [2018] 4 W.L.R. 17; [2018] S.T.C. 81; [2017] B.T.C. 535; [2018] S.T.I. 90). The appeal concerned the tax treatment of payments made to two footballers, Peter Crouch and Wilson Palacios, on their transfer to Stoke FC. The question was whether the payments were “from employment” within the meaning of s.62 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. The judge accepted that the principle in the Court of Appeal case of Henley v Murray [1950] 1 All ER 908 applied and was binding: namely, that payments made in consideration of the abrogation of the contract were not “from” employment.
• ICM (UK) Ltd v HMRC (UKUT0472 (TCC)) – Georgia was instructed as junior to Akash Nawbatt QC in this Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) case concerning the correct approach to tri-partite employment contracts and the territorial reach of the Construction Industry Scheme (2016).
• Emerald Contracting Ltd v HMRC (TC/2015/02248) – Georgia was instructed as junior to Akash Nawbatt QC in this complex Construction Industry Scheme case that involved complex questions of the territorial scope of the scheme and the correct approach to complex contractual relationships, as well as issues concerning the employment status of individuals.
• YPS Scaffolding Ltd & Ors v HMRC (TC/2015/03673, TC/2015/03675, TC/2015/03676, TC/2015/05901) – Georgia was instructed as junior Marika Lemos in this case concerning the employment status of various individuals working for a group of companies. The companies were assessed as owing significant sums in unpaid PAYE and NI contributions in respect of individuals who were asserted as being self-employed but were, on HMRC’s case, employees. The appellants’ case was struck out.

DOTAS Cases

Georgia is regularly instructed by HMRC in DOTAS applications, including the following:

• Greenwich Contracts Limited v HMRC – an appeal against the allocation of a scheme reference number, introduced by the Finance Act 2021
• HMRC v AML Tax (UK) Ltd and Denmedical UK Ltd – Georgia represented HMRC in this DOTAS application.
• Connaught Corporate Solutions Limited v HMRC (TC/2017/05527) – Georgia was instructed by HMRC in this successful application for a penalty under s.100C Taxes Management Act 1970 for failing to comply with s.313C FA 2004 DOTAS information notices. Again, this is the first application of its kind. The notices were issued following Channel 4 Dispatches programme, ‘How the Rich Avoid Tax’ but the taxpayers refused to comply. A test case for HMRC, the judgment will shed light on the status of such notices.
• HMRC v Cornhill PW Ltd (TC/2020/03983) – Georgia represented HMRC in this first (and successful) application for information under s.313B Finance Act (“FA”) 2004 on the basis that certain arrangements were “notifiable arrangements” under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes provisions.
• Hyrax Resourcing Limited & Ors v HMRC (TC/2017/04389; TC/2017/04408; TC/2017/04410 – Georgia was instructed by HMRC as junior to Akash Nawbatt QC in this successful application – the first of its kind – for an order under s314A and s306A Finance Act (“FA”) 2004 that the arrangements in question were “notifiable arrangements” within the meaning of s306(1) FA 2004.

Judicial Review (Tax)

• R (Murphy & Linnett) v HMRC (CO/3186/2019) – Georgia represented HMRC in successfully resisting this judicial review case concerning the correct interpretation of Extra-Statutory Concession, ESC B18; namely whether the tax credit available to a UK resident beneficiary in respect of UK tax paid on UK source income by a non-resident trustee is limited to a 6-year cap. Applying principles of public law (legitimate expectation) and trust law (the correct interpretation and application of the concession), this case considers the purpose and genesis of ESC B18 and how it should be applied by HMRC.
• R (Glencore) v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1716; [2017] BTC 32 – Georgia was instructed by HMRC as junior to Timothy Brennan QC in this first case concerning diverted profits tax, a tax introduced by the Finance Act 2015. The taxpayer sought judicial review of HMRC’s decision to issue it with a charging notice under s.95 Finance Act 2015. The Court of Appeal held that judicial review was not appropriate where alternative remedies within the statutory scheme existed. The case is an important authority on the applicability of judicial review in the tax context.
• I Ltd v HMRC (2016-2017) – Whilst under investigation by HMRC, the taxpayer sought repayment of VAT from HMRC. Georgia gave advice to a taxpayer on a novel JR point; namely, that it could be used to review the lawfulness of a failure to act in the exercise of a public function.

Residency / Domicile

Georgia is regularly instructed in domicile and residency cases, including the following:

• Strachan v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 617 (TC) – Georgia was instructed by HMRC in this domicile appeal which raised interesting questions as to the domicile of choice test. HMRC successfully resisted the appeal.

• Coller v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 212 (TC) – Georgia was instructed by HMRC in this domicile appeal which spanned three generations and considered the weight to be given to witness testimony in domicile cases (including statements from deceased witnesses); the adhesiveness of a domicile of origin when an individual has few, if any, links or attachments to it; and, how later acts and events should be taken into account when discerning someone’s intention at a given point in time. HMRC successfully resisted the appeal.

• Gaines-Cooper v HMRC (SC/3095/2005 and TC/2017/02594) – Georgia is instructed by HMRC as junior to Chris Stone and Akash Nawbatt KC in this case concerning the residence and domicile of Mr Gaines- Cooper, following on from the 2006 Special Commissioners hearing. The case addresses issues including residence, domicile, the transfer of assets abroad and settlements legislation.

• S v HMRC – Georgia was instructed by HMRC as junior to Akash Nawbatt KC in this domicile case to determine the domicile of an individual with a complex domicile history.

•  R v HMRC – Georgia was instructed by HMRC as junior to Akash Nawbatt KC and Chris Stone in this domicile case. The taxpayer was a high net worth individual, seeking to prove that he had displaced his UK domicile of origin. After years of dispute, the taxpayer eventually conceded.

Indirect Tax

• ASC Handling Ltd v HMRC (2017-2018) – Instructed by the taxpayer, Georgia gave advice on this air handling firm’s liability to pay air passenger duty collected by an airline that subsequently went bankrupt.
• Clipper Group Holdings Ltd v HMRC (TC/2012/03394) – Instructed by HMRC and led by Jonathan Hall QC in this high value case concerning unpaid Customs and Excise duty on illegally diverted consignments of alcohol. The Appellant argued that the assessment was unreasonable and disproportionate as they were not a party to the fraud. HMRC relied on reg.5 of the Excise Goods (Accompanying Documents) Regulations 2002 and Butlers Ship Stores and successfully resisted their application for wide-ranging specific disclosure at a preliminary hearing. The appeal was withdrawn in January 2016.

Off-payroll working (IR35)

Georgia has extensive experience representing taxpayers in employment status and IR35 disputes with HMRC. As one of the leading juniors in this field, her advice is regularly sought by taxpayers on all matters relating to both IR35 litigation and reforms.

She also writes extensively on the subject: see her articles on PGMOL here; her article on the business on own account test here; and her article on the Court of Appeal decisions in Atholl House and Kickabout here.

Recent notable cases include:

• Gary Lineker And Danielle Bux T/A Gary Lineker Media v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 340 (TC) – the first case to consider the application of IR35 to a general partnership. Georgia represented the taxpayer before the FTT, which allowed the appeal, finding that the IR35 provisions did not apply.
• Kickabout Productions Limited v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 502, [2022] All ER (D) 02 (May) – Georgia was instructed by the taxpayer in this appeal concerning the employment status of a well-known radio presenter. HMRC argued that the presenter would have been an employee such that the IR35 legislation applied and income tax and NICs were owed on sums paid via a personal service company. 
• Christa Ackroyd Media v HMRC [2019] UKUT 326 (TCC), [2019] STC 2222 – Georgia was instructed as junior to Jolyon Maugham QC in this appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the FTT ([2018] UKFTT 0069; [2018] S.T.I. 907), which found that the IR35 legislation applied to Ms Ackroyd’s services supplied to the BBC.
• Paya, Willcox & Allday Media v HMRC (TC/2014/03148; TC/2014/06207; TC/2016/00837) – Georgia was instructed as junior to Jonathan Peacock QC (11 New Square) and Marika Lemos (Devereux) in these appeals concerning the employment status of television journalists paid through personal services companies whilst working with the BBC.

Employment

Georgia is recognised as a leading junior in employment by both Legal 500 (leading junior; tier 4) and Chambers and Partners (Up and Coming).

Georgia has a strong and diverse practice in employment law. She has significant experience representing clients at the Employment Tribunal, including multiple-day hearings in whistleblowing and discrimination claims, and at EAT level. Georgia represents both claimants and respondents from both the private – and public – side, regularly appearing for the Treasury Solicitors and the Metropolitan Police. In addition to her advocacy work, Georgia also has extensive advisory experience, developing a particular specialism in employment status– an area in which her experience in the tax field is invaluable.

Georgia edits Discrimination Law (Bloomsbury Professional), contributing to chapters on Discrimination in Education, Discrimination in the Provision of Goods and Services, Discrimination in the Provision of Premises and Housing, Discrimination in Clubs and Associations, and Exemptions.

EAT

• Jakkhu v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (UKEATPA/0007/17/RN) (UKEAT/0276/18/LA) - Georgia was instructed by the respondent in this claim for disability discrimination (s.13 and s.15 Equality Act 2010) and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The case has been to the EAT twice. At the first EAT hearing the claimant initially appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s preliminary finding that he was not disabled by reason of depression at the material time. Georgia represented the respondent at the EAT and was successful in persuading the tribunal that there was no error of law in the judge’s reasoning, which included issues of fluctuating effects and deduced effects. At the second EAT hearing the Claimant argued that the ET had fallen into errors of law in the way it applied the tests for s.13 (direct) and s.15 Equality Act 2010 discrimination. Two grounds of appeal were successfully resisted. The EAT found, however, that the judge had made a technical fault in erroneously considering the law of vanishing dismissals.
• Thomas v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory and Property Management UK Ltd UKEAT/0134/16/JOJ- UKEAT/0134/16/JOJ - Georgia successfully represented the Claimant/Appellant at the EAT in this case about the fairness of a redundancy process. The EAT held that, having found the process was “perfunctory and insensitive”, it was perverse for the Employment Tribunal to have found it to be fair.
• Mrs D Chadburn v (1) Doncaster & Bassetlaw Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (2) Jo Mann (UKEAT/0259/14/LA), Bar Pro Bono Unit - Georgia represented the Claimant in this appeal against an award for costs.

Employment Status 

• Andrews v LB Waltham Forest  – Georgia is instructed by the claimant in this case concerning the employment status of someone working at the William Morris Gallery over a number of years.
• Kowal & Ors v The Doctors Laboratory Limited  – Georgia was instructed by the Respondent and led by Timothy Brennan QC in this group litigation concerning the employment status of courier drivers. This is another case in the contentious and highly publicised field of employment status. The claimants brought claims for holiday pay, unauthorised deductions from wages, as well as race discrimination. The claim was subsequently settled.
• Illgner v Winkontent Ltd – Georgia was instructed by the claimant as junior to Bruce Carr QC in this claim against Monocle for unlawful deduction of wages. As the claimant was engaged by Monocle as an unpaid intern, the tribunal will have to determine whether she was a worker at the material time.
• McGregor v P&O Ferries – Georgia was instructed by the respondent in this claim for unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and holiday pay. Whilst the respondent accepts the claimant (on a zero hours contract) was a worker, the tribunal will have to determine whether she was also an employee at the material time.
• Khan v (1) Synergise Consulting Ltd and (2) ES Field Delivery UK Ltd – Georgia was instructed by the second respondent in this claim for disability discrimination (s.13, s.15. s.19 and ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010) and unfair dismissal. The case raised interesting issues about who employed the claimant, who was engaged to work for the Ministry of Defence via a third party, employment agency and personal services company.
• Gabriel v LVMH – Instructed by LVMH, Georgia successfully resisted this claim for constructive unfair dismissal brought by someone working at a beauty concession at Debenhams. As the claimant worked for LVMH out of a department store run by another entity, the claim raised interesting issues about who the correct employer was.
• Neal v Biss & Ors - Georgia successfully represented the claimant in this dispute over employment status and unfair dismissal.

Discrimination and Harassment

Georgia is highly experienced at dealing with discrimination, harassment, and victimisation complaints. Example cases from recent years include:

• Smith-Ihionvien v DVSA – Georgia represented the Respondent in this multi-day race discrimination and harassment case.
• Khangura v Babcock Integrated Technology Limited – Georgia successfully resisted this claim for constructive discriminatory dismissal, race discrimination, harassment, and victimisation
• Chadwick v BT - Georgia is instructed on behalf of BT in this claim for s.15 disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.
• Guray v William Hill - Georgia is instructed on behalf of the respondent in this claim for pregnancy discrimination and failure to carry out a workplace pregnancy risk assessment.
• Jakkhu v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited – Georgia successfully resisted this claim for disability discrimination (s.13 and s.15 Equality Act 2010), failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment in a 5-day hearing before Cambridge employment tribunal, winning on each and every claim. The case raised complex legal and factual issues relating to reasonable adjustments.
• Behzadifar v BA – Instructed by British Airways, Georgia successfully resisted this claim for discrimination arising from a disability (s.15 Equality Act 2010) and failure to make reasonable adjustments, winning on all grounds.

Industrial Relations and Collective Bargaining

• Various Claimants v Sodexo Ltd – Georgia was instructed in this complex group litigation arising out of the closure of Covid-19 testing centres. The Claimants bring claims for collective pay awards and redundancy payments. Before the final determination of the claims, the tribunal must determine: (1) which claimants were employees and which workers; (2) what constitutes an “establishment” for the purposes of consultation; (3) who has standing to bring claims in cases where employee representatives were elected; and (4) which claims are time-barred. These issues are due to be addressed by way of a series of preliminary hearings (using test claimants) in 2023. The sheer size and scale of this case means it will have significance for a vast number of claimants, but the collective consultation issues, set against the unusual backdrop of the pandemic, means it is likely to be persuasive authority for other tribunals considering similar issues.

Breach of Contract

• Moyo v PwC – Georgia advised on and successfully resisted this claim for breach of contract after an employee was dismissed for failing to evidence his right to remain in the UK. She has advised on issues involving jurisdiction, breach of contract and immigration.
• Cook v Network Rail – Georgia successfully resisted this breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages claim.

Unfair Dismissal

• Tickner v Thomson Reuters – Georgia successfully represented the respondent in this claim for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages. The employee in question had been dismissed for gross misconduct after harassing a female colleague.
• Crabtree v Fuller – Georgia was instructed by Fullers and successfully resisted this claim for unfair dismissal.
• Lowman & Walker v Network Rail – instructed by Network Rail, Georgia successfully resisted this claim for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and trade union related automatic unfair dismissal.
• Turkovic v Chapters Taverns - Georgia successfully defended this four day claim for unfair constructive dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination, winning on all grounds.

Whistleblowing

• Ojo v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Metropolitan Police Service) – Georgia successfully resisted this claim for whistleblowing brought by a police constable against the Metropolitan Police Service. After a 5-day hearing, EJ Morton held that the claimant had not made protected disclosures relating to road safety. The claimant’s application for permission to appeal was refused.
• JMJ v Coca Cola – Instructed by Coca Cola as junior to Akash Nawbatt QC, Georgia was successful in defending this claim for whistleblowing, victimisation and unfair dismissal.
• James Patrick v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Metropolitan Police Service) – Georgia represented the MPS as junior counsel to Pete Edwards, in successfully defending this multi- faceted whistleblowing claim.
• Anthony Reed v Delacey & Sons - Georgia represented the successful claimant in this four-day constructive unfair and whistleblowing claim.

Unlawful Deduction of Wages and Human Trafficking 

• Cook v Network Rail – Georgia successfully resisted this breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages claim.
• Roucou v (1) Esparon; (2) Frederick - Georgia acted pro bono for the Anti-Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit in this claim, which included allegations of unlawful deduction of wages and discrimination.
• Georgia was involved in the landmark first instance case of Tirkey v Chandok for the Anti-Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, in which the Employment Tribunal held that caste discrimination was included in the concept of race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010

Unlawful Deduction of Wages and Human Trafficking

• Cook v Network Rail – Georgia successfully resisted this breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages claim.
• Roucou v (1) Esparon; (2) Frederick - Georgia acted pro bono for the Anti-Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit in this claim, which included allegations of unlawful deduction of wages and discrimination.
• Georgia was involved in the landmark first instance case of Tirkey v Chandok for the Anti-Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, in which the Employment Tribunal held that caste discrimination was included in the concept of race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010

Redundancy and Unfair Dismissal

• McDermott v Chas a Blatchford - Instructed by the respondent, Georgia resisted this claim for redundancy and unfair dismissal
• Thomas v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory and Property Management UK Ltd - Georgia represented the Claimant in this multi-day redundancy, age and disability discrimination case.

Investigations

Georgia has conducted large scale investigations for organisations in the private and public sector, including allegations of whistleblowing, discrimination, and gross misconduct. She is available to conduct investigations in her own right – and has led investigations into a multitude of allegations, interviewing dozens of witnesses – or as part of a wider team.

Sports Law

Georgia is forging a practice in sports law and accepts instructions in all aspects, including taxation, disciplinary matters, discrimination, employment, personal injury, and contractual disputes. She has led cases in her own right, including advising a firm of solicitors on how to issue proceedings abroad against a footballer, based in the Netherlands, now playing for a Russian club.

Georgia has appeared in a number of important and high-profile employment tax cases in the sports sector. She has represented the Professional Game Match Officials Ltd in their appeal against assessments to tax before the FTT ([2018] UKFTT 528 (TC) , UT ([2020] UKUT 147 (TCC) and CoA ([2021] EWCA Civ 1370). She was led by Jolyon Maugham QC in Tottenham Hotspur v HMRC  (FTT and UT), which determined that payments made to players on their transfer to Stoke City FC were not “from employment” within the meaning of s.62 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 and she represented a sports radio host in his IR35 appeal (Kickabout Productions Ltd v HMRC).

Personal Injury

Stephen regularly represents seriously injured Claimants in the High Court and the County Courts. He undertakes CFA work and frequently travels to meet claimants all over the country. He has a wealth of experience in drafting large schedules and is a member of APIL and PIBA.

He has experience of all aspects of personal injury for Defendants.

Notable recent resolved cases include:

• LH v SJ (October 2023) – settlement of £3M at mediation for a young  Claimant with a severe degloving injury, chronic pain and psychiatric injuries after he was run down (opposite Marcus Dignum KC).
• AH v MG (October 2023) – settlement of £775,000 at JSM for a widow and adult children whose father died following a RTA. Causation was complicated by the fact that the death was several weeks after the RTA and was caused by a pulmonary embolism that had occurred following the deceased suffering trauma to the leg (he was a cyclist) following by a long period of near-immobility.
• GT v CA (September 2023) settlement at JSM of over £2.1M for a Claimant with devastating orthopaedic injuries to his leg following a motorcycle accident.
• RB v PL Ltd (June 2023)  settlement at JSM of £2.45M for a claimant who suffered a traumatic amputation of the lower leg at work (contributory negligence alleged).
• JLW v PCL Transport (May 2023) - settlement approved for £775,000 for a serious leg injury for a young man with severe learning difficulties (akin to Down’s Syndrome). He was injured when he was cycling alongside a lorry that was turning left. He was already disabled and unemployed and living in the family home, but there were significant claims for future care and specialist footwear. The approval was in Spring 2023 following a JSM in December 2022.
• MCY v Neate (September 2022) approval of settlement at £1.3M – fatal accident claim for a ‘self-made man’ who had established a number of business interests after immigrating from Kosovo as a young man and who died in a RTA.
• LRT v Jones & Aviva (July 2022, led by Stephen Killalea KC) – settlement of £10M approved for a teacher who suffered a devastating brain injury when a panel was blown off the roof of the Defendant’s vehicle and struck the Claimant through his windscreen (opposite Derek O’Sullivan KC).
• AB v XY (May 2021, led by Stephen Killalea QC) - settlement of £12.5M plus provisional damages for a client who suffered a spinal injury with paraplegia and amputation of the left leg following a motorbike accident in September 2019. The claimant is the first amputee in the UK (and the second amputee in the world) to have made use of a ‘Rewalk’ exoskeleton that enables him to walk. The settlement incorporated a significant sum for the rebuilding of his family home where a swimming pool is being built for him. The claimant was a keen sportsman and had a successful career in the financial services sector. There were significant claims for disability sporting equipment, including skiing equipment. Settlement was achieved less than 20 months after the accident.
• NAJ v MIB (November 2021) – approved settlement (six-figure sum) of a claim for a brain injured claimant who was a passenger in a single-car accident. There were allegations that the claimant had been using drugs and/or aware of the driver’s drug use prior to the accident and liability was denied throughout by MIB.
• G v SM (June 2021) - Settlement of £750,000 for a claimant who was punched in the stomach by an elderly dementia patient while working as a healthcare assistant. She developed gastroparesis which meant that her stomach was paralysed and she was unable to digest food. She was fed through a line by way of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) so that she was constantly attached to a feeding bag. The case was complicated by the opinion of the experts that the gastroparesis was functional – i.e. non-organic so that there was a strong psychiatric element. Liability, causation of the incident, medical causation and quantum were all in dispute. There were very substantial claims for care, loss of earnings and accommodation.
• Hallibone v McKenna (June 2021) - Settlement of part-heard trial with a defence of automatism. The First Claimant was a back seat passenger and a claim was also made in respect of the death of a front-seat passenger. The parties were all members of the same extended family. It was agreed that the Defendant had passed out while driving. The medical evidence as to the cause of the loss of consciousness was unclear but it was likely to have been an absence seizure. There were significant factual disputes as to whether the Defendant had referred to having had ‘one of my funny do’s’ immediately following the accident and whether her sister (not a passenger but the second claimant) had told her about a previous incident when the defendant appeared to ‘go blank’. A trial took place before Her Honour Judge Richardson in Hull but was adjourned part heard. Before the trial could resume, the Defendant made an offer and the case settled.
• ABX v JBS & Advantage Insurance (October 2020) – Brain injury. Settlement for brain injured claimant who was run down when a pedestrian. The claimant had significant issues with alcohol and drug addiction prior to the accident and the collision happened in the early hours of the morning. Led by Stephen Killalea QC.
• Settlement of a claim against a Premier League football club for historic child abuse by a coach in the 1970’s/80’s.
• I v P (July 2019) - Settlement for £3.25M at JSM for a young man who suffered 60% steam burns in a workplace accident and developed critical care neuropathy leading to very severe mobility issues and lifelong disability although he was still employed by the Defendant.
• Gauntlett v CICA (October 2019) – Brain injury, CICA.  Stephen obtained the maximum CICA award for the claimant who had suffered a head injury when she was mugged and assaulted. She suffered with epilepsy and had frequent seizures. She was unable to work. The total award would have exceeded £1M but was capped by the tribunal at the maximum amount of £500,000.
• RC v Mager Homes Ltd (September 2018) – Spinal Injury – complete paraplegia. Settled at JSM less than 2 years post-accident for more than £2 million net of contributory negligence (workplace accident, self-employed Claimant on a construction site).
• Harris v Roy QBD 5 February 2010, LTL 8/3/10. Principles to be applied when considering an application for an interim payment by a severely injured Claimant (Stephen subsequently secured more than £1M at JSM for the Claimant in September 2011).

Ongoing notable cases include:

• Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd – judgment is awaited in this Supreme Court case on the effect of uncontroverted expert evidence. This is expected to be a leading authority on expert evidence. Stephen was led by Robert Weir KC, having appeared for the Claimant at all levels.
• Junior counsel representing numerous claimants in respect of physical and emotional abuse suffered while in psychiatric care (led by Niazi Fetto KC).
• Child leg amputation case against MIB. Admission of liability secured and interim payment obtained in respect of accommodation (led by Stephen Killalea QC).
• Incomplete tetraplegia claim for passenger injured in single-vehicle RTA.
• Brain injury claim following accident on construction site.
• Brain injury claim for child pedestrian.
• Spinal injury (tetraplegia)claim for a passenger injured in a RTA.
• Secondary victim and FAA claim for family members who witnessed the aftermath of fatal RTA.

Clinical Negligence

Stephen’s clinical negligence practice has a particular emphasis on complex and high-value fatal cases.  He deals with claims against hospitals and GPs.

Examples of recent cases include:

• Acting for the family of a woman with sickle cell syndrome who died in hospital following the birth of her child.  Stephen represented the family at the inquest and subsequently (February 2021) settled the claim against the hospital trust (led by Robert Weir QC).
• Schembri v Marshall [2020] EWCA (Civ) 358  – Stephen won the trial in the High Court before Stewart J, in relation to a fatal failure to diagnose Pulmonary Embolism by a GP. The Defendant appealed and Stephen (led by Robert Weir QC) won in the Court of Appeal.
• Representing the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed deep vein thrombosis after she was admitted to a specialist mental health unit at a coroner's inquest (Art 2), with the jury finding multiple causative breaches of duty by the NHS Trust. Subsequent settlement for a six-figure sum.

Ongoing cases include:

• A fatal claim against an NHS Trust and Ambulance Trust.
• A claim in respect negligently performed cystoscopy.

Coroners & Inquests

Stephen also has extensive experience of coroners' inquests. These include:

• Representing the family at a jury inquest in respect of death caused by Legionnaire’s disease at a care home in Wiltshire (2019) – the care home was subsequently fined £150,000.
• Representing the family at a jury inquest in respect of death caused by Legionnaire’s disease in Essex (2016) – BUPA was subsequently fined £3M.
• Representing the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed deep vein thrombosis after she was admitted to a specialist mental health unit at a coroner's inquest (Art 2), with the jury finding multiple causative breaches of duty by the NHS Trust (2017).

Professional Negligence

Stephen accepts instructions in solicitors' negligence and all aspects of clinical and dental negligence.

He is a member of the PNBA.

A recent case was settlement at mediation for a six-figure (November 2022) of a claim for professional negligence for an injured claimant whose claim was struck out by reason of his solicitors’ negligence.

Credit Hire

• W v Veolia Environmental Services (UK) PLC [2010] EWHC 2020, HHJ Mackie QC - Leading case establishing that the Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer's Home or Place of Work Regulations 2008 apply to credit hire agreements and the effect of subrogation on enforceability.

Human Rights

• D v Knowsley MBC (unreported February 2013) - Stephen represented the claimant in her claim under the Human Rights Act against the Local Authority who had detained her in a care home without her consent and without proper authorisation. The Local Authority admitted before the High Court in Manchester that they had breached the Claimant's Human Rights under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention. This is thought to be the first reported occasion on which a Local Authority has admitted (or been held) to have contravened a vulnerable adult's Article 6 rights in relation to unlawful detention

Costs

Stephen has experience of advising ATE insurers in relation to funding proposals relating to high-value litigation

• Reynolds v Stone Rowe Brewer (A Firm) [2008] EWHC 497 (QB) - The effect on a solicitor of giving a series of inaccurate costs estimates to their client.
• Wilson v William Sturges & Co [2006] 16 EG 146 (CS) - The difference between interim statute bills and simple requests for payment by a client of solicitor's fees on account, and the effect of over-charging by the firm.
• Gordon Dadds v Deborah King (Unreported) December 2014, Central London County Court, HHJ Saggerson – Stephen successfully defended a claim against a client who was being sued by her former solicitors for over £150,000 where the solicitors’ bills were not in the proper format.

Employment

Seb is recognised as a leading junior in Employment in each of Chambers & Partners, Legal 500 and Who’s Who Legal. He is described by those who instruct him as “able to distil huge volumes of information and law into clear, concise and compelling arguments in court, extremely responsive and commercially aware, exceptionally hard-working and forensic in his cross-examination” (Legal 500).

He practises in all areas of employment law, regularly in matters of complexity exceeding the presumed experience of someone of his Call, and often appears against King's Counsel.

Seb acts on behalf of both claimants and respondents in a broad range of complex and high value litigation and has appeared in the ET, EAT, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. He has a particular specialism in worker and employment status, and in discrimination and whistleblowing cases. He is also experienced in conducting internal investigations, grievances and disciplinary processes.

Seb acts for a wide range of public and private sector clients which includes FTSE 100 companies, banks and risk management companies, insurance companies, energy suppliers, telecoms providers, freight and infrastructure companies, high street chains, universities and charities.

In addition to his court and advisory work, Seb regularly provides witness familiarisation training, employment law seminars and mock tribunals for corporate clients.

Significant recent cases include:

PGMOL v HMRC: acting for HMRC (led by Akash Nawbatt KC) all the way up to the Supreme Court in this appeal concerning the employment status of football referees

A v B & Ors. acting for the Appellant employee in the EAT in an appeal concerning the extent to which legal professional privilege can operate to curtail whistleblower protection for in-house counsel

Beg v HSBC Global (Services) UK Ltd: acting for HSBC regarding claims for equal pay, race and sex discrimination in the ET and EAT

Coningham v Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd: acting for Warner Bros regarding claims for sex and age discrimination and equal pay.

Ljungberg v NetApp: acting for NetApp in a claim concerning issues of territorial jurisdiction

Bahad v HSBC Bank Plc: acting for HSBC in the EAT in relation to a claim for religious belief and race discrimination and whistleblowing dismissal

Gillies v Network Rail: acting for Network Rail regarding a claim for age discrimination arising out of the operation of a voluntary severance scheme

Khan v Tesco Stores Ltd: acting for Tesco at a six-week hearing in the ET concerning claims for race discrimination and victimisation

Parsad v United Insurance Brokers Ltd: acting for UIB regarding a claim for age discrimination arising out of the operation of a permanent health insurance scheme

Bijur v Maritime and Coastguard Agency: acting for the former Head of Maritime Security Operations in a claim for whistleblowing dismissal against the MCA

Kuznetsov v Manulife Investment Management (Europe) Ltd: acting for Manulife in the ET, EAT and Court of Appeal regarding a claim for whistleblowing dismissal

Off-payroll working (IR35)

Seb has extensive experience of advising on employment status and the operation of IR35 in the context of both employment and tax litigation.

Investigations

Seb is regularly instructed to conduct grievance and disciplinary investigations, appeals and other internal processes, particularly involving allegations of discrimination and whistleblowing. Recent instructions have included an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment involving the CEO of a US parent company in the media sector against employees of a subsidiary based in the UK.

In addition to his investigations work, Seb is an experienced provider of witness familiarisation training to corporate clients facing Tribunal proceedings.

Tax

Seb is a leading junior in tax, described by those who instruct him as “very practical, pragmatic and excellent when engaging with clients” (Legal 500). He has a particular interest and specialism in employment status and IR35 and in matters concerning residence and domicile.

In 2021, Seb was appointed Junior Counsel to the Attorney General (B Panel), having served for five years on the C Panel (from 2016).

He is regularly instructed on behalf of HMRC and taxpayers in both a contentious and advisory capacity and has appeared in the First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in a broad range of tax litigation. His practice encompasses statutory appeals and judicial review proceedings.

Seb was formerly an Authorised Agent under the FA Football Agents Regulations. His sports law practice, and extensive knowledge of the sports industry, means he is uniquely placed to deal with tax litigation in a sports context. He is described by the legal directories as 'The go-to junior for work on sports tax issues' (Legal 500).

In addition to his court and advisory work, Seb regularly provides witness training and seminars for clients.

Significant recent cases include:

PGMOL v HMRC: acting for HMRC (led by Akash Nawbatt KC) all the way up to the Supreme Court in this appeal concerning the employment status of football referees

Tour Racing Ltd v HMRC: acting for TRL (led by Timothy Brennan KC) in an appeal concerning the employment status of Sir Bradley Wiggins when engaged as a professional cyclist by Team Sky

Embiricos v HMRC: acting for HMRC (led by Akash Nawbatt KC) all the way up to the Court of Appeal in this appeal concerning HMRC’s power to issue partial closure notices.

Charman v HMRC: acting for HMRC (led by Akash Nawbatt KC) all the way up to the Court of Appeal in this appeal concerning the taxation of exercised contingent share options by a non-resident taxpayer

Oppenheimer v HMRC: acting for HMRC (led by Chris Stone) in this appeal concerning Treaty residence under the South Africa-UK Double Taxation Convention

Perlman v HMRC: acting for HMRC in this appeal concerning the FTT’s power to determine the issue of domicile in the course of an appeal against an information notice

Barry v HMRC: acting for HMRC in this appeal concerning the correct taxation of payments made by Manchester City FC to a football agent in connection with the transfer of an international footballer

Hull City AFC (Tigers) Ltd v HMRC: acting for HMRC (led by Akash Nawbatt KC) in this appeal concerning the correct tax treatment of payments made by Hull City AFC pursuant to an agreement concerning the image rights of an international footballer

P v HMRC: acting for a football agency regarding an enquiry into overseas payments made to third parties in connection with the transfer to a Premier League club of one of Europe’s leading footballers.

Publications

"Taxing Talent: Principle and Pragmatism", jointly authored with Timothy Brennan KC, in the International Sports Law Review 2016, Vol. 16 Issue 1.

Sports Law

Seb is ranked as a leading junior in Sport and is described in the directories as “the go-to junior for work on sports tax issues” and as having “excellent experience in complex sports tax cases” (Legal 500). He is appointed to the Sport Resolutions Legal Advice Panel.

Seb was formerly an Authorised Agent under the FA Football Agents Regulations. His extensive knowledge of the sports industry means he is uniquely placed to deal with sports-related litigation. He regularly advises on contractual and employment-related disputes in a sporting context. His clients include high profile players, agents and clubs, in the UK and internationally.

He accepts instructions on all aspects of sports law, sports governance and sports-related disciplinary and tax matters and has recently advised in relation to legal disputes in England (Premier League, Championship and League One), Scotland (Scottish Premiership), Greece (Superleague), Italy (Serie A) and North America (MLS).

He has acted in Football Association Disciplinary Proceedings.

He is frequently called upon to advise on the interpretation of governing statutes and has recently advised on the interpretation of articles in the FIFA statutes, Code of Ethics and Disciplinary Code.

Significant recent cases include:

PGMOL v HMRC: acting for HMRC (led by Akash Nawbatt KC) all the way up to the Supreme Court in this appeal concerning the employment status of football referees

Tour Racing Ltd v HMRC: acting for TRL (led by Timothy Brennan KC) in an appeal concerning the employment status of Sir Bradley Wiggins when engaged as a professional cyclist by Team Sky

Barry v HMRC: acting for HMRC in this appeal concerning the correct taxation of payments made by Manchester City FC to a football agent in connection with the transfer of England international footballer, Gareth Barry

Hull City AFC (Tigers) Ltd v HMRC: acting for HMRC (led by Akash Nawbatt KC) in this appeal concerning the correct tax treatment of payments made by Hull City AFC pursuant to an agreement concerning the image rights of Brazilian international footballer, Geovanni

P v HMRC: acting for a football agency regarding an enquiry into overseas payments made to third parties in connection with the transfer to a Premier League club of one of Europe’s leading footballers.

Pennant v HMRC: acting for HMRC in this appeal concerning the taxation of payments made by Stoke City to a football agent when England international footballer, Jermaine Pennant, transferred from Real Zaragoza to Stoke

Personal Injury

Richard represents claimants across a wide range of personal injury areas. He has particular experience instructing in catastrophic spinal and brain injury cases, largely arising from motor vehicle accidents and medical negligence. He has also acted for claimants in sexual assault cases and immigrants claiming damages from their treatment in Australian detention centres.

Notable cases in Australia include:

• Ellis v Pell and Ors [2007] NSWCA 17: Claim against the Catholic Church regarding the legal capacity of the Archdiocese of Sydney and representative liability of Cardinal Pell. Matter refused special leave in the High Court.
• Dominello v Dominello and the Nominal Defendant [2009] NSWCA 95: Decision on the meaning of “injury” in Section 3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW).
• Shaw v Thomas [2010] NSWCA 169: Decision on the duty of care owed by parents to a son’s friend who sustained brain damage after falling from a bunk bed at their house. Matter refused special leave in the High Court.
• Waller v James [2013] NSWSC 497: Case on wrongful birth for a child who suffered a cerebral stroke four days after birth due to inheriting auto-thrombin deficiency. Decision on whether failure to warn of risk of the disease caused the wrongful birth.

Recent settlements include:

• AUD $5 million for major birth trauma case involving a cerebral palsied child.
• AUD $12 million for catastrophic burn victim as a result of negligent supervision at a state run school.
• AUD $8.2 million for the passenger in a motor vehicle accident arising from a joy ride. 

Clinical Negligence

Cross jurisdictional matters
Currently instructed in catastrophic injury case in High Court and Court of Appeal in both Australia and UK.

Motor Vehicle Law/ Clinical negligence/ Public Liability
Engaged in numerous catastrophic cases at mediations and in court, including regular appearance in the NSW Court of Appeal.

Engaged in overseas tort matters, including Australian based torts heard in UK courts and vice versa.

Health & Safety

Industrial Law

Mainly in Occupational Health and Safety prosecutions.

Additional Information

Member of Sir Owen Dixon Chambers 
179 Elizabeth St Sydney NSW 2000, Australia

Accidents Abroad & International Travel

Richard has recent and extensive experience acting for both Australian claimants catastrophically injured abroad, and foreign claimants injured in Australia.

He is currently instructing on cross-border personal injury claims involving:

• Australian resident sustaining quadriplegia in motor vehicle accident in Western Samoa
• UK resident sustaining a severe traumatic brain injury following a quad bike accident in Tasmania, Australia.
• Serbian resident injured in a motor vehicle accident in NSW.
• Israeli resident injured in a boating accident in Sydney Harbour.
• French resident injured in a motor vehicle accident in South Australia.

Notable cases include:

• Stylianou v Toyoshima and Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2013] EWHC 2188 (QB): Decision on service outside of jurisdiction and scope of Rome II arising out of UK claimant catastrophically injured in Australia. The first case in which assessment of quantum under Rome II has been fully considered by the English courts.
• Cooley v Ramsey [2008] EWHC 192 (QB): Decision on service outside of jurisdiction arising out of a UK claimant injured in motor vehicle accident in Australia and repatriating in the UK.

Recent settlements include:

• £5.5 million for UK resident catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in NSW in 2010.
• £3 million for Hong Kong citizen injured in motor vehicle accident in the UK in 2010, repatriated to Hong Kong.
• AUD $7.25 million (approx GBP £4.2) for UK resident catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accident in NSW in 2008.

Employment

Jesse is recognised as a leading employment junior, in particular for his expertise in appellate work, whistleblowing and discrimination claims. He as a  broad employment and equality practice acting for both claimants and respondents/defendants. His workload covers the full range of employment disputes: whistleblowing and discrimination; restrictive covenants, confidentiality and soft-intellectual property; collective rights and industrial action; contractual claims; and TUPE. He is a contributing editor to Discrimination Law (Bloomsbury Professional): chapters on Discrimination at Work and Exceptions and Defences.

Jesse’s employment work often overlaps with his commercial practice, and he is regularly instructed in claims arising from agency/consultancy contracts and employment-related aspects of professional liability and insurance law.

He is regularly instructed in the Employment Tribunals and County Courts, as well as appearing in the Queen’s Bench and Chancery Divisions of the High Court, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Jesse is also instructed to conduct or act for parties in internal investigations and appeal processes, including into allegations of discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and allegations relating to disciplinary action and dismissals.

His client base includes multinational and FTSE 100 companies, police forces and NHS trusts, SMEs, charities and trade unions, senior executives and other individuals. He is a member of ELA, ELBA and ELAAS and undertakes pro bono work via the FRU / Advocate where appropriate.

Examples of recent work:

Appellate Work

• Aquatronic Group v Mace (2019) UKEAT/0192/17: acted for successful Claimant in appeal concerning the proper approach to substitution
• Thompson v Ark Schools [2019] ICR 292, EAT: instructed for Respondent school in appeal concerning misdirection of fact / failure to give adequate reasons
• P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] ICR 560, SC: represented the Respondent in case concerning judicial immunity of police misconduct panels and interplay with directly-effective EU rights under the Framework Directive (sole counsel at first instance and before EAT; led by Tom Linden KC in Court of Appeal and Supreme Court)
• Choksi v Royal Mail Group Ltd (2018) UKEAT/0105/17/LA: acted pro bono in successful appeal concerning the correct approach to making a costs award
• Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] ICR 634, EAT: acted for respondent in appeal concerning the date on which a claim added by amendment is deemed to have been brought for limitation purposes
• Windstar v Harris [2016] ICR 847, EAT: represented the successful claimant at first instance and on appeal in establishing territorial jurisdiction of employment tribunal over employment of peripatetic merchant seaman
• Nayif v High Commission of Brunei Darussalam [2014] EWCA 1521: assisted Robert Glancy KC in case concerning issue estoppel in circumstances where the ET did not have jurisdiction and proceedings were subsequently brought in the High Court
• Royal Mail Group v Lall [2013] All ER (D) 272: appeal concerning substitution in unfair dismissal claim and the proper approach to costs under the EAT’s costs regime;
• Instructed in a number of matters currently pending appeal to the EAT

Employment Disputes in the Civil Courts (injunctions and other employment-related disputes)

• KS v New Co (2019)(Ch): obtained a ‘doorstep Piller’ order in respect of intellectual property and confidential information obtained by the Defendant, a former consultant to Claimant company, with which the Defendant had established a new business in direct competition
• A v Solicitors Firm (2019)(CC): acted for Defendant in solicitors’ negligence claim arising from alleged failure to lodge ET proceedings in time
• Renewables Co v Former Employee (2018)(KBD): acted for Claimant in obtaining interim relief to enforce non-compete and confidentiality obligations against departing employee
• Teacher v Governing Body of School (2018)(KBD): instructed for Defendant in resisting injunction seeking specific performance of employment contract
• M v Insurer Panel Solicitors (2018)(KBD): instructed for Defendant in solicitors’ negligence claim arising from  alleged failure to advise on and pursue discrimination claim in ET proceedings
• Talent Agent v Singer (2018)(CC): acted for successful talent agent in claim for breach of agency agreement and damages against singer who as part of a group won TV talent contest, switched agent and had significant commercial success
• O’S v Construction Co (2017)(KBD): acted for Defendants in breach of contract claim brought by former MD of construction companies relating to remuneration, bonus and profit share
• F v Academy School (2017): acted for Defendant in dispute concerning fraudulent misrepresentation in inducing employment relationship;
• X & Y v Betting Co (2017) (KBD) - instructed (with Andrew Burns KC) for respondent retailer in seeking injunctive relief following Claimants’ retention and use of highly sensitive privileged and confidential information in context of wider whistleblowing dispute and concurrent HSE investigation;
• Recruitment Co v (1) Former Employee and (2) New Recruitment Co (2016)(CC): acted for Second Defendant in successfully resisting injunction based on alleged inducement to First Defendant to breach his restrictive covenants
• NB v PHI Insurer (2015)(KBD): acted (with Nick Randall KC) in challenge to PHI insurer’s reliance on cap on Ombudsman’s award to defeat all claims by beneficiary under PHI policy
• SB v Former Solicitor and Counsel (2015)(KBD): instructed (with Andrew Burns KC) for Second Defendant in professional negligence claim brought against Claimant’s former solicitor and counsel following alleged under settlement of ET claim
• City Link strike (2013)(KBD): acted for CityLink (led by Timothy Brennan KC and Andrew Burns KC) in claim for injunctive relief to prevent a strike and advising CityLink on its response to wider industrial dispute.

Employment Tribunal Litigation

• Instructed in full gamut of litigation before the Employment Tribunal, including those areas listed below.

Discrimination and Whistleblowing

• Frequently instructed in lengthy and complex discrimination and whistleblowing cases, including:
• X v Defence Contractor (2020): instructed in two-week trial concerning dismissal of contractor for misuse of sensitive information;
• P v Met (2020): acted for Respondent police force in successful defence of first discrimination challenge to dismissal decision taken by police misconduct panel;
• M v Consultancy (2020): instructed for Respondent in disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claim brought by company director following alleged stress at work followed by failure of Respondent to address issues appropriately;
• C v Police Force (2020): defended police force in multi-week whistleblowing detriment and race discrimination following allegations of perverting the course of justice made against more senior officer;
• JM v Construction Co (2020): instructed for Respondent in multi-week ET hearing concerning CEO’s alleged sexual harassment of junior employee;
• A v Government Department (2020): instructed for senior civil servant in disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claim following fundamental change to Claimant’s role which was unsuitable due to his disability;
• W v Retailer (2019): struck out disability discrimination claim on basis determination of ill-health retirement benefits could not constitute unfavourable treatment;
• K v Architect (2019): acted for individual Second Respondent in claim for whistleblowing dismissal / detriment and race discrimination brought by former General Counsel, involving complex issues concerning privilege over legal advice given by Claimant to Respondents.
• M v Charity (2018): acted for Respondent charity in claim for disability discrimination and constructive dismissal arising from suspension and disciplinary process following Respondent uncovering alleged fraud on the part of employee;
• W v Financial Services Co (2018): acted for City analyst in complex claim concerning pregnancy, sex, disability and race discrimination allegations;
• X & Y v Betting Co (2016-18): instructed (with Andrew Burns KC) for respondent betting company in sensitive whistleblowing case, involving interim relief application and dispute over Claimants' reliance on privileged and confidential material;
• L v Financial Services Co (2018): instructed for Claimant salesman in whistleblowing claim following being ostracised after raising serious concerns about conduct of colleagues misselling financial services products;
• E v Recruitment Co (2017): acted for Claimant in establishing claim for equal pay compared to male recruitment consultant carrying out like work to Claimant.
• Sitz v Oppenheimer Europe [2013] EqLR 1209: acted for the successful claimant (with Andrew Burns KC) in high-profile sex discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal claim against an international brokerage house. Significant media interest, including The Times, The Times Magazine, Telegraph, Evening Standard, Daily Mail);

TUPE

• Litigation and advisory work on a range of TUPE issues, including in relation to proceedings for failure to inform and consult, measures arising from transfers, TUPE in insolvency situations, and claims between employees, transferees and transferors in relation to all of the material aspects of the TUPE Regulations. Including:
• F&S v Healthcare Providers (2020): instructed for transferor in arguing ‘special circumstances’ defence to failure to inform and consult;
• T&H v Superyacht Manufacturer (2019): acting for CEO and CFO of Superyacht Manufacturing Group in establishing TUPE transfer upon acquisition of parts of business from administration;
• 12 Cs v Jewellery Co (2019): acted for purported transferor in ET claim determining breadth of TUPE transfer / assignment following acquisition of part of business from administration;
• W v Outsourcing Cos (2018): acted for transferee outsourcing company in unfair dismissal and discrimination claim pre-dating transfer;
• Transferee v Transferor (2018): acted for transferee in proceedings against transferor arising from failure to provide employers’ liability information.

Collective Rights

• Instructed for claimants and respondents in claims concerning collective obligations under TURL(C)A and TUPE and in relation to industrial action. Instructions include:
• Instructed for transferee in respect of alleged failure to inform and consult and under TUPE and failed to meet collective consultation obligations in respect of redundancies
• Instructed in USDAW & Ors v Barratt: represented the trade union and individual claimants in obtaining maximum protective award and in establishing TUPE transfer and automatically unfair dismissal in relation to Barratts entering administration in 2011 and again in 2013; obtained maximum protective awards in favour of over 100 employees
• City Link strike (2013)(QBD) – acted for CityLink (led by Timothy Brennan KC and Andrew Burns KC) in claim for injunctive relief to prevent a strike and advising CityLink on its response to wider industrial dispute.

Status, Jurisdiction and Procedural Issues

• Instructed in a range of cases concerning employment status, the ET’s jurisdiction and other procedural issues. Cases include:
• Territorial jurisdiction cases: instructed in cases for Nautilus, the Maritime Union, in establishing territorial jurisdiction of UK ETs to determine disputes concerning seafarers who work predominantly or exclusively outside UK territorial waters. Cases include Windstar v Harris [2016] ICR 847 and Cs v Guernsey Shipping Co: acted for 25 seafarers in claims against Guernsey Shipping Co in establishing the ET had jurisdiction to consider their unfair dismissal, redundancy and discrimination claims despite Claimants working in oilfields outside the UK and their employer being based in Guernsey.
• Privacy: acted for parties seeking and resisting anonymity and restricted reporting orders, and advising on alternative steps to protect a party’s reputation;
• Employment status and vicarious liability: instructed in wide range of cases concerning worker/employment status under ERA 1996 and EqA 2010, agency worker status, and statutory vicarious liability;
• Judicial proceedings immunity: instructed for the Metropolitan Police in a number of cases relying on judicial proceedings immunity both prior to and following the Supreme Court’s decision in P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] ICR 560, SC
• Time limits: instructed in large number of cases concerning time limits, including the appeals in Thompson v Ark Schools [2019] ICR 292, EAT and  Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] ICR 634, EAT.

Other Statutory Rights

• Instructed in a wide range of claims concerning statutory employment rights (a number of which are noted above), including:
• Dismissal cases: instructed in numerous unfair, constructive unfair and wrongful dismissal cases;
• Claims concerning the application of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 and the Working Time Regulations 1998, including claims concerning the family worker / domestic servant exceptions and concerning the proper application of reg.13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (additional leave) to long-term absentees in receipt of PHI benefit;
• A number of cases concerning the interpretation and application of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010.

Permanent Health Insurance

• Instructed in a range of cases concerning entitlements to, quantification of, and consequences of permanent health insurance benefits for employment relationship, including:
• F v Financial Services Firm (2019): challenge to termination of PHI payments at age 60 on grounds of age / disability discrimination;
• B v Software Co (2017): instructed for Respondent in various proceedings brought by employee in receipt of PHI concerning Respondent’s ongoing obligations during her absence from work;
• P v Hedge Fund (2017): instructed for Claimant to advise on quantification of PHI entitlement and settlement options for buy-out of PHI cover;
• NB v PHI Insurer (2015)(KBD): acted (with Nick Randall KC) in challenge to PHI insurer’s reliance on cap on Ombudsman’s award to defeat all claims by beneficiary under PHI policy.

Jesse is regularly instructed in an advisory capacity and as an advocate in commercial matters, including cases with a commercial-chancery cross-over. Much of his commercial work involves professional negligence and/or insurance issues (detailed separately, below).

General commercial experience includes:

• instructed in £multi-million management and loan dispute arising out of overseas property deal
• instructed by a bank to advise in relation to various claims against it as a CCA 1974 “creditor” to overseas property transactions
• instructed in various claims pursuing declarations of resulting/constructive trusts arising from property transactions
• instructed for solicitors’ firm in various claims brought under purported claims management arrangements alleging dishonesty and breach of contract
• acting for talent agent in claim against high-profile musician for breach of contract
• acted for  property developer and agent of BVI SPV in dispute concerning  over £1.3 in unpaid commission  and profit share
• instructed in c.£500k dispute over consultancy agreement and bonus/profit-share issues
• advising property developer on £multi-million company and shareholder dispute
• acted in High Court proceedings for recovery of sums due under various guarantor agreements (settled following mediation)
• instructed in various claims in the Chancery Division arising from property held in trust, including actions seeking declarations of trust, directions to trustees and associated orders
• acted for claimant in complex misrepresentation claim arising from the sale of a business (settled following mediation)
• acted for defendant at trial in successfully resisting attempt to set aside Tomlin Order for fraud
• successfully resisted a claim against a guarantor raising abuse of process issues
• advising on termination of software distribution agreement;
• advising on exclusion of liability and UCTA in relation to a breach of contract claim

Insurance & Reinsurance

Jesse acts in a range of insurance-related matters, both in an advisory capacity and as an advocate.

Recent and ongoing work includes:

• advising in various actions against insurance companies and employers for permanent health insurance and ill-health retirement, including settling career-long loss claim against insurer and employer for in excess of £1.3m; and acting (with Nicholas Randall KC) in KBD action to enforce ombudsman award arising from PHI insurer declining cover
• Instructed to advise and draft global insurance policy for multinational Plc (with Richard Harrison);
• advising local authority on subrogation/salvage/title issues around recovery of valuable antique
• instructed for various insurance companies in coverage disputes
• advising on impact of health insurance policies on personal injury claims
• acting for defendant insurers in cases giving rise to fraud allegations

Jesse regularly speaks and writes on insurance related topics. He edited Atkin's Court Forms Insurance title (with Alison Padfield and Sam Nicholls). He has also recently delivered seminars on aggregation and Permanent Health Insurance, and published an article on the AstraZeneca decision in the Court of Appeal (BILA journal).

Jesse also gained a broad experience of insurance litigation as Andrew Burns’ pupil, including subrogation and indemnity claims, claims under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 and Riot (Damages) Act 1886, and the EL Trigger litigation before the Supreme Court [2012] 1 WLR 867, led by Colin Wynter KC.  As the pupil of Rob Hunter, Jesse assisted in advising insurance companies on their exposure under employers’ and public liability insurance policies.

Professional Negligence

Jesse is instructed in professional negligence claims involving a wide range of professionals, including:

• instructed in various claims both for and against conveyancing and litigation solicitors, including around negligent advice and conduct of litigation, and negligent execution of transactions/deeds
• instructed for defendant solicitors arising from under settlement of personal injury claims
• instructed for defendant solicitor in KBD claim for failure to advise and pursue discrimination claim in employment tribunal
• instructed for defendant actuary in claim arising from expert evidence (with Richard Harrison);
• instructed for defendant insurance broker in claim arising from failure to obtain cover
• instructed by an Independent Financial Advisor in a professional negligence and contractual indemnity dispute
• instructed for engineering firm in resisting engineers' negligence set off claim
• instructed for the claimant in an engineers’ negligence and breach of contract claim
• assisting Andrew Burns KC in professional negligence actions involving solicitors’, barristers' and insurance brokers’ negligence, including Begum v Neejam & Malik)

Investigations

Jesse has a busy practice spanning the breadth of employment and commercial law, with a particular focus on litigation.  He has been instructed to conduct and act for parties in a range of complex and sensitive investigations, disciplinary and grievance proceedings, and internal processes. He was recently instructed by a state energy company to investigate a complaint of sexual harassment made by an employee against the Head of Finance and an allegation of victimisation against the CEO. He also has experience of hearing internal appeals, including a solicitor’s appeal against dismissal.

Employment

Georgina has represented Claimants and Respondents in a range of final hearings and procedural hearings both in court, tribunal and EAT. She has advised and represented parties as sole counsel on the full range of employment disputes.

Georgina has particular experience in:

• Trade union recognition and all claims via the CAC;
• Strike and 'unlawful' inducement trade union law and strategy;
• Whistleblowing claims;
• individual discrimination claims for all protected characteristics, and covering direct, indirect, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment and victimisation;
• unfair and constructive dismissal;
• breach of contract;
• redundancy and consultation rights and obligations;
• enforcement of restrictive covenants in the High Court.

She has a special interest in the cross over between commercial and competition law, and their impact in the employment sphere.

She writes the age discrimination section of Bloomsbury Discrimination Law, and regularly speaks and write on industrial and individual employment law issues.

Off-payroll working (IR35)

Georgina has advised on IR35 in the pure tax context, but also brings a particular experience of contractual arguments on employment status arising from her allied employment law practice, for example the Addison Lee drivers case which is pending hearing in the Court of Appeal on a contractual basis which may change the direction of judicial travel on allegedly sham self-employment cases.

She also successfully acted for HMRC in relation to whether ex-footballer and television presenter Phil Thompson was an employee of Sky for tax purposes, and on a complicated case regarding the taxable status of loans to ex-employees following multiple transactions – in both cases succeeding as sole counsel against tax specialists who took Silk within a year or two of those cases.

Mediation

Georgina is a trained mediator, and has acted in numerous mediations. She has been praised for her ability to handle difficult individuals and sensitively but tenaciously push to achieve settlement. 

Investigations

As a barrister with prior experience of working and managing in private practice, and in-house, Georgina brings a unique level of insight and maturity to her Investigations. This allows her to investigate with the utmost sensitivity, while weighing-up evidence in a considered, nuanced manner, not shying away from difficult issues.

Notable investigations in which Georgina has conducted include:

• An allegation of harassment against a senior partner of a prominent law firm;
• Allegations of homophobic harassment, alongside an increasing culture of homophobic taunting at work;
• Allegations of racial harassment by a team of managers, within a prominent multinational company.

Telecommunications & IT

Georgina Hirsch is recognised as one of the rising stars in the Devereux team.  Having previously worked in industry as a solicitor, she has readily slotted in as a secondee to assist telecos. She has appeared before the Competition Appeal Tribunal in the major Ethernet case (ex ante cost orientation obligations and Ofcom’s dispute resolution powers) to be hearing in the Court of Appeal in 2017,  and has advised on the BCMR 2016, the Electronic Communications Code and other regulatory issues

Click here for the full transcript of the CAT's decision in Ethernet.

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Georgina has experience in Competition Law, most recently in the Ethernet litigation at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and has enjoyed leveraging the financial understanding from her MBA in the course of dealing with the accounting and economics aspects of this work.

She has advised in a number of misrepresentation claims.

Additional Information

Georgina’s lecturing experience ranges from two years teaching ILEX Civil Litigation in the late '90s, to numerous employment law courses both for managers and for trade unionists, and legal conference presentations including IRS and American Bar Association international Labor Law Conferences in Washington and Beijing. PShe has written numerous articles for ELA and other publications and edits the Harassment section of Bloomsbury’s Discrimination Law Encyclopaedia.

Lectures/seminars delivered include:

• Competition Law Enforcement: the new concurrency regime;
• Cutting Edge Issues in Discrimination Law (as part of a US and EU panel at 2014 ABA conference, Tel Aviv);
• The new CMA and the Telecommunications Sector;
• Employment Tribunal Rule Changes 2013;
• Agency Workers;
• Employment Law Tips and Tricks;
• Collective Agreements – Clauses Apt for Incorporation;
• Acting for trade unions;
• Dealing with client/funder dilemmas;
• IER October Update Conference 2010;
• Panel speaker at American Bar Association Labor Law International Conferences in Beijing 2008 and in Washington 2009;
• IER Employment Act 2008 Conference;
• IRS Employment Act 2008 Conference;
• Delivered the response to a paper given by Katherine Apps at a Seminar run by the Centre for European Legal Studies at Cambridge University Law Faculty in September 2008 on the Viking and Laval ECJ strike law cases. ILEX Civil Litigation Course[GH1] ;
•  [GH1]A lot of these are quite old. Shall we bin them and just replace with a comment that she regularly lectures on legal issues and strategy, without giving a list?

Employment

Kate is ranked as a leading Employment practitioner in both Legal 500 2024 and Chambers & Partners 2023. Kate frequently represents clients in high value and multi-day tribunal claims, as well as hearings in the EAT and High Court.  Kate has appeared in the Court of Appeal, both led and unled, and in the Supreme Court as a junior.  

Kate’s work covers the full spectrum of employment related issues including discrimination, whistleblowing, high value pay disputes, trade union disputes, interim relief and injunctions, artificial intelligence at work and employment status.  Kate also routinely conducts complex workplace investigations into grievances, disciplinaries and appeals for her clients.  Kate also has extensive experience of preparing witnesses to give evidence at tribunal and can provide bespoke witness familiarisation sessions, including mock cross-examination, upon request.

Recent work Includes:

• X v Royal Bank of Canada (ET, 2202698/2020) – defended a high value whistleblowing claim brought by a former employee working in anti-money laundering, acting as sole junior to Jane McCafferty KC.
• House of Commons - represented the House of Commons in multiple claims and, separately, advised the House on potential strike action by its staff members.
• Hassan v TripActions (ET, 2206451/2021 & EAT) – represented the Respondent in a high value claim for race discrimination and whistleblowing.
• Farook v Network Rail (ET, 2500055/2021) – defended a complex and salacious sexual harassment claim, widely reported on in the tabloid press.
• High Street Retailer – conducting a complex grievance investigation into complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace.
• Cambridge v Mott MacDonald Ltd (ET, 1400498/2021) – defended an application for interim relief by a former construction engineer on whistleblowing grounds.
• G v H – representing the respondent investment bank in a high value (£300,000) unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim.
• S & S v M - representing the respondent technology company in two joined claims for religious belief and race discrimination.
• M v H – representing the respondent bank in a high value (£250,000) automatic unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim.
• S v O – representing an IT company in a complex and high value unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claim involving allegations of serious sexual assault subject to restricted reporting orders (circa £500,000 claimed).
• X & Y v M - represented the respondent in a claim for sex discrimination and equal pay involving multiple claimants.
• S v O – representing the respondent in a high value unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claim (£500,000 claimed).
• E v C - representing the respondent in a claim for automatic unfair dismissal and detriments on whistleblowing grounds.
• A v V - representing a senior executive bringing claims for automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing/health and safety detriments.
• X v CS - representing the respondent bank in a claim for whistleblowing being brought by two former banker employees.
• X v X - advised and represented the respondent in respect of proceedings to prevent a former employee from breaching his restrictive covenants.
• R (Unite The Union) v Chief Constable of North Yorkshire – sole counsel for the employer on a judicial review and interim injunction application relating to the right to strike during the Coronavirus national lockdown.  Two of the other parties were represented by James Eadie KC and Oliver Segal KC.
• Cadent Gas v Singh [2020] IRLR 86 - represented the respondent, both as sole counsel and also (on appeal) led by a KC, in a TU dismissal claim.

Kate is a contributing author to ‘Discrimination Law’ published by Bloomsbury Professional and a member of ELA’s Race Equality Committee.  Kate has also given seminars and had articles published on a range of employment law topics, including artificial intelligence in the workplace, discrimination, redundancy procedure, employment status and whistleblowing.

Tax

Kate has a substantial tax practice, appearing in the FTT and UT on many occasions without a leader and, as a junior, in both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

Kate’s expertise is recognised by Legal 500 2021, in which she is ranked as a Leading Junior for both Corporate Tax and VAT. Kate is also ranked by Chambers UK 2021 for Tax. The directories particularly highlight Kate’s strong advocacy skills, as well as her expertise on the cross-over between employment and tax.

Recent work includes:

• Lloyds Asset Leasing v HMRC (2023) – appeared as junior for HMRC in an extremely high value (circa £1 billion) claim involving cross-border group relief.
• DSJ v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 1705 – appeared as sole junior for HMRC in a three day Court of Appeal hearing on a significant and widely reported company residence case. Kate also appeared at both the FTT and UT hearings below.
• Corte Diletto v HMRC [2020] UKFTT 75 (TC) – represented HMRC unled in a VAT matter concerning the correct classification of vegan food items. The case was widely reported including in the Tax Journal in in February 2020.
• Atherton v HMRC [2019] UKUT 0041 (TCC) – represented HMRC without a leader at a full multi-day Upper Tribunal hearing on a tax avoidance scheme.
• CBS v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 474 – sole junior to Akash Nawbatt KC in the Court of Appeal in the first case to consider the new Managed Service Company legislation in s 61B ITEPA 2003.
• Morrison Trust v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 93 – sole junior to HMRC in a widely reported case involving a capital gains avoidance scheme.
• Credit Suisse v HMRC [2019] EWHC 1922 – sole junior to Akash Nawbatt KC in the first case to consider the Bank Payroll Tax legislation.
• X & Y v HMRC – sole junior to Adam Tolley KC in a series of related cases involving employee benefit trusts.
• X v HMRC – representing HMRC without a leader, and leading a more junior barrister, on a series of high profile employment status cases involving celebrity sportspeople.
• Whyte v HMRC, UT/2018/01174 – representing HMRC in the UT against a KC. UTJ Andrew Scott made reference to “the considerable force in the detailed submissions ably made by Ms Balmer” (at [45]).

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Kate has significant experience of commercial matters in the County Courts and High Court.  Kate has provided advice and assistance in respect of claims involving breach of contract, restrictive covenants, breach of settlement agreements, breaches of confidentiality, stress at work and other issues.

Kate has also advised and represented clients in claims involving the non-employment provisions of the Equality Act 2010.  This includes housing; education; the provision of goods and services; and transport. 

Off-payroll working (IR35)

Kate has extensive experience in employment status and IR35, both in the public and private sectors. Her work in this area has included litigating high profile IR35 cases for HMRC, as well as providing written advice to private clients on IR35 issues.

Recent work has includes:

• X v HMRC – representing the respondent without a leader, and leading a more junior barrister, on a series of high profile employment status cases involving celebrity sportspeople;
• V v HMRC - representing HMRC in a claim involving issues of employment status;
• X v BBC - representing the BBC in a claim involving issues of employment status;
• X v HMRC – represented the respondent, as junior to a QC, on a high profile employment status case involving a sports presenter;
• Christianuyi [2019] EWCA Civ 474 – instructed on behalf of HMRC in a Court of Appeal case involving managed service companies.

Employment

Chris is recognised as a leading junior in Employment Law by Chambers UK 2021 and Legal 500.

He specialises in high value and complex tribunal claims, for respondent clients including City banks, professional services firms and an international airline and for claimants. Recent tribunal cases have covered the full gamut of employment claims including all forms of discrimination, whistleblowing, collective consultation, working time and TUPE issues. He also offers experience in applications for interim relief.

Chris is regularly instructed to advise on employment injunction matters in the High Court, particularly regarding the enforceability of restrictive covenants. In addition, he has experience of bonus and wrongful dismissal disputes. He has a wealth of experience in High Court practice and procedure, derived in particular from being instructed for six-years as lead junior for the defendants in the Construction Industry Vetting Information Group litigation.

Chris has built a stellar reputation in employment status issues, particularly IR35. He is uniquely well placed to advise on the reforms of IR35 in the private sector. His recent tax advisory practice has also covered: taxation of termination payments; National Minimum Wage enquiries; and claims under the furlough scheme.

Appellate cases include:

• Kickabout Productions Limited v HMRC; Christa Ackroyd Media v HMRC – Upper Tribunal. Leading cases on application of IR35
• Seahorse International v Nautilus [2019] IRLR 286 (Court of Appeal) – collective consultation abroad
• LEBC v Davey - claim to enforce restrictive covenants
• JLT Specialty v Craven [2018] EWCA Civ 2487 - claim for clawback of £500,000 bonus payment 
• Moorthy v HMRC [2018] ICR 1326 (Court of Appeal) – taxation of termination payments
• Kenbata v Westminster City Council UKEAT/0063/16 - appeal of finding of harassment and an order for costs
• Saiger v NHS England - ET whistleblowing claim in the NHS in which the claimant sought £1m damages
• Majekodumni v City Facilities UKEATPA/0157/15 – use of Dropbox in the EAT
• Jose v Julio [2012] IRLR 180 – the first appellate authority on the correct interpretation and application of the "domestic worker exception" in the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, as well as race discrimination

Chris has experience of litigation concerning subject access requests (Gaines-Cooper v HMRC [2017] EWHC 868 (Ch)) and is well placed to advise employers on their duties when responding to the same.

Chris contributes to Bloomsbury Professional's Discrimination Law; and writes regularly for the ELA Briefing and the PLC Employment Blog. He offers seminars to solicitors; recent topics include: employment status, taxation of termination payments, the practical aspects of disability discrimination claims, and data protection claims in the employment context.

Tax

Chris is recognised as a leading junior in Tax Law by Chambers UK 2021 and in Corporate Tax and Private Client by Legal 500.

He has substantial tax litigation experience in the First-tier Tribunal and appellate tribunals, often handling complex and high value appeals without a leader.  His advisory practice is focused upon issues of residence and domicile (in which he has an extensive litigation background) and matters that cross over with his employment practice, notably employment status (including IR35 and the agencies legislation) and taxation of employment income.

Chris has extensive experience of judicial review claims in the tax context and the application of the Human Rights Act to tax appeals.

Recent advisory work includes:

• Claims under the furlough scheme;
• Potential application of IR35, including contracts review;
• Individual residence under the Statutory Residence Test;
• Advice on domicile status;
• Advice on the deduction of regulatory fines for calculating corporation tax;
• Taxation of termination payments, including the efficient structuring of settlement agreements;
  Advice in the context of National Minimum Wage enquiries;
• Advice on whether payments constitute employment income;
• Employment status of pilots, independent financial advisors, instructors and examiners

Judicial review

• R (Haworth) v HMRC (CoA) – challenge to follower notices and APNs issued by HMRC. Being heard by Supreme Court in 2021
• R (Amrolia) v HMRC (CoA) – test case on the ability of HMRC to recover excess tax repaid to partners
• R (Mehan) (UT) – challenge to interpretation and application to the claimants of legislation defining remittances
• R (Davies & James v HMRC; Gaines-Cooper v HMRC) (Supreme Court) - legitimate expectation in respect of IR20 
• Stone v HMRC (HC) - Judicial review of HMRC's decision not to waive interest

Private client and estate planning

• Higgins v HMRC (CoA) – definition of ‘period of ownership’ for the purpose of determining principle private residence relief.
• Banks v HMRC (UT) – challenge to inheritance tax assessments using European Convention of Human Rights and EU law.
• Mackay v HMRC (UT) - ordinary residence appeal (and subject also to a judicial review claim)
• Lee & Bunter v HMRC (FTT) – ‘Round the World’ scheme, residence of trustees under double tax conventions
• Gulliver v HMRC (FTT) - effect of a previous domicile ruling upon the scope of a domicile enquiry
• Peck v HMRC (FTT) - individual residence
• Hargreaves v HMRC (UT and CoA) - individual residence; procedure for determining validity of discovery assessments
• Daniel v HMRC (FTT) - individual residence; full-time employment abroad; discovery assessments

Corporate tax and taxation of businesses

• Marathon Oil v HMRC (FTT) - deduction for decommissioning expenditure
• G4S v HMRC (FTT) - first case on deductibility of parking fines
• Mertrux Ltd v HMRC (FTT, UT and CoA) - a leading case on the sale of goodwill
• Ramsay v HMRC  (UT) - definition of a 'business' for rollover relief
• McLaren v HMRC (FTT and UT) - deductibility of a fine of $100m imposed by the FIA
• Samadian v HMRC (FTT and UT) - deductibility of travel expenses by a doctor in private practice
• Duckmanton v HMRC (UT) - deductibility of expenses incurred in defending a criminal charge

Employment income

• Kickabout Productions v HMRC (UT); Christa Ackroyd Media v HMRC (UT); Red, White & Green v HMRC (FTT); RALC v HMRC (FTT); Paya & Others v HMRC (FTT) – application of IR35
• Moorthy v HMRC (CoA) - taxation of termination payments, in particular 'injury to feelings'
• Pettigrew v HMRC (FTT) - whether compensation for discrimination was employment income

Practice and procedure in the First-tier Tribunal

• McCabe v HMRC (UT) – disclosure of documents exchanged under Mutual Agreement Procedures
• Glencore v HMRC (FTT) – application to stay FTT proceedings pending Mutual Agreement Procedures
• Raftopoulou v HMRC (UT and CoA) - ability of FTT to extend time for an application for repayment of overpaid tax
• Birkett v HMRC (UT) - jurisdiction of FTT to hear public law arguments
• Walker v HMRC (UT) – proper scope of FTT’s powers under s 50(6) TMA 
• Estate of Charles Deville v HMRC (FTT) - jurisdiction of FTT to hear public law arguments
• Fessal v HMRC (FTT) - role of the Human Rights Act in tax appeals

Chris has written articles published in Taxation magazine and the Journal of International Tax, Trust & Corporate Planning. He has delivered seminars to solicitors on the taxation of partnerships, taxation of employment income, and the statutory residence test. He is a member of the RBA.

Chris has extensive experience of a broad range of commercial matters in the County Courts and High Court. As well as acting on his own matters, Chris has been instructed as a junior in long-running and complex High Court claims.

Recent cases include:

• Construction Industry Vetting Group Information litigation – one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2016 – Group Litigation involving claims by over 700 claimants bringing claims for defamation, unlawful means conspiracy, misuse of confidential and private information and breach of the DPA. Chris was lead junior on the case for six years, including the related Part 20 claims.
• A major solicitor’s professional indemnity insurance aggregation dispute, selected as one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2014 (led by Colin Edelman QC).
• Southern Rock Insurance v Endsleigh Insurance (led by Colin Edelman KC and Richard Harrison) - a breach of contract claim for in excess of £15million against a claims handling service arising out of 50,000 motor insurance claims. Chris was instructed on this case for over 18 months.

Chris has significant experience of High Court litigation in other contexts - subject access requests; restrictive covenants; bonus claims; private nuisance. He is familiar with the practical aspects of civil litigation, in particular cost budgeting.

Professional Negligence

In light of his strong commercial expertise, Chris regularly receives professional negligence instructions, for example in solicitors', barristers', valuers' and architects' negligence cases on behalf of both claimants and defendants. He has a particular speciality in solicitors' negligence cases, with recent cases including the late service of proceedings, alleged failure to properly advise, and conveyancing matters. He draws upon his multi-disciplinary expertise in employment and tax law for cases which involve those substantive areas of law, such as the quantification of loss in a negligently handled employment claim, or advice on whether a tax avoidance scheme would have succeeded if it had been successfully implemented.

Chris has delivered seminars to solicitors on topics including: lawyers' negligence in employment claims; limitation in professional negligence claims; SAAMCO and the Recoverability of Losses in a Falling Market.

He wrote an article with Alison Padfield on section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925, published in the Solicitors' Journal. Click here to view.  

Chris is a member of the PNBA.

Sports Law

Chris is available for instruction on all employment aspects of sports law as well as disciplinary matters, particularly in rugby. He is President of the Kew Occasionals RFC.

Chris was instructed by the claimant in Kevin Keegan v Newcastle United Football Company Ltd [2010] IRLR 94, in the Premier League Manager's Arbitration Tribunal, and by a television football commentator in a claim against his employer.

Other recent experience includes:

• representing a rugby league club sued in contract and tort in connection with a player's doping offences
• advising a Premier League footballer on the taxation of a termination payment
• appearing before the Rugby Football Union disciplinary panel in a matter concerning an abandoned game
• advising a Premiership rugby player regarding his rights under his playing contract and image rights agreements
• appearing for HMRC in the appeal by McLaren Racing Limited regarding the correct tax treatment of the $100m fine imposed in 2007 by the World Motor Sport Council

Off-payroll working (IR35)

Chris has greater experience in litigating IR35 in the tax tribunals than any other junior barrister. He appeared in the leading Upper Tribunal cases of Kickabout Productions and Christa Ackroyd Media and in the First-tier Tribunal in Red, White and Green; RALC; Canal Street Productions; and Paya & Others.

Chris is much sought-after by clients to help them understand and prepare for the reforms to IR35. As a former strategy consultant, his advice is commercially minded. He has delivered numerous seminars to accountant and solicitor clients. He has written on the subject of the reforms for the Employment Lawyers Association Briefing and has recorded a webinar (accessible to members of ELA).
 

Employment

Sam is well regarded by those that instruct him for his eye for detail, cross examination skills and overall expertise. He has significant experience representing clients at the Employment Tribunal, including multiple-day hearings involving sexual misconduct and discrimination claims, and EAT.

His respondent clients include: well-known financial institutions, blue-chip companies, City recruitment agencies, utility companies, public authorities and NHS Trusts and associated organisations. Sam has an in-depth understanding of the financial markets as a result of his work in the TCI on many banking related disputes.

Whilst he acts for both respondents and claimants, Sam has developed a practice in representing claimants in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse. These cases are often high profile and reported in the media. One particularly recent example is the case of A v Mike Hill MP (2021), which was widely reported in the press (read the Devereux news item here). This involved allegations of sex harassment and discrimination, victimisation, disability discrimination and whistleblowing (decision awaited from London Central Employment Tribunal). The Claimant was awarded in excess of £430,000.

In January 2022 Sam successfully represented British Gas Services Limited in the first case arising out of the business modernisation exercise (widely reported in the media as a “fire and rehire”) which resulted in the dismissal of over 400 engineers: Fisher and O’Donnell v British Gas Services Limited.

Throughout 2023, Sam has been instructed in a number of disability discrimination cases (for both Respondents and Claimants) involving long-covid. He therefore has in-depth knowledge of the issues that can arise in this emerging area.

Sam (led by Suzanne Mckie KC) also recently represented the Claimant in a case involving very serious allegations of sexual misconduct, by a senior manager, against a City financial institution and achieved a large settlement.

Sam has also recently advised on apprenticeship law, equal pay claims, and employee competition issues and restrictive covenants. He has experience of acting in all areas of discrimination law, unlawful deduction of wages, TUPE and whistleblowing cases.

Appellate Employment Work

At appellate level in the UK Sam has acted in the following cases:

• Olubodun v Total Stay Group Ltd (UKEAT/0204/09/DA): an appeal against a Tribunal's decision on victimisation.
• Hensman v MOD (UKEAT/0067/14/DM): Sam was instructed at the EAT stage and represented the Claimant in the EAT on an appeal by the Respondent on all aspects of the Tribunal's decision. The case is an important authority on the issue of justification in disability discrimination.
• Atanda v Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health (UKEAT/0272/17/JOJ): Sam represented the Claimant in this appeal arising from allegations of sex discrimination.
• Rakova v London North West Healthcare NHS Trust (UKEAT/0043/19/LA): Sam was instructed by the Respondent in an appeal involve reasonable adjustments.
• Singh v Metroline West Limited [2022] EAT 80 (see below).
• Clarke Willaims v Greater Manchester Police (r3.10 hearing): Sam successfully represented the Appellant (GMP) at this preliminary hearing – the unusual aspect of this case is that it is an appeal against the Tribunal’s use of broad discretion in using its case management powers.
• Grayling v Wolsley: (June 2023): Sam successfully represented the Respondent, before Eady J, in defending the appeal against the Tribunal’s finding on reasonable adjustments in the context of alternative employment.

Recent highlights of Sam’s work include:

• Fekete v A Financial Institution (2023): Sam represented the Respondent in this case which generated widespread publicity.
• Miller v Tesco Stores Ltd (2023): Sam successfully acted for the Respondent in this complex whistleblowing (involving allegations and detriment and automatic unfair dismissal) and disability discrimination claim.
• Singh v Metroline West Limited [2022] EAT 80: Sam successfully represented the Claimant in his appeal against the finding by the Tribunal that there was no fundamental breach of contract and therefore no constructive dismissal.
• Meloy v University of Leeds (2022): Sam represented the Respondent in this health and safety, and whistleblowing detriment case.
• Bone v West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust(2022): Sam represented the Trust in this claim of unfair dismissal, disability and race discrimination (decision awaited).
• Burns v Mace (2021): Sam successfully represented the Respondent in this claim of unfair dismissal (redundancy arising from economic consequences of the pandemic) direct disability discrimination, harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• Headley v Morgan Sindall Group: Sam successfully represented the Respondent in this 5 day disability discrimination case.
• Dozie v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (2020): Sam successfully represented the First Respondent in this claim for race and disability discrimination.
• Grayling v Wolseley UK Ltd & Others (2021): Sam successfully represented the Respondents in a 8 day case involving allegations of disability discrimination and harassment.
• G v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (2021): Sam successfully acted in this complex 10 day discrimination case.
• Remmer v Primark: Sam represented the Respondent in this 5 day disability discrimination claim (decision awaited).
• Amaglo v Emcor Group Plc: Sam represented the Respondent in the whistleblowing claim, including successfully defending an application for interim relief.
• A v Mike Hill MP: (see above for full details).
• Dr M Abdollahi v University Hospital of Southampton Foundation Trust: Sam represented the Trust in this unfair dismissal claim by a doctor.
• GLP v East London Foundation Trust: a 9 day unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim (decision pending).
• A multi-day preliminary-hearing on privilege – led by Suzanne Mckie QC.

Legal Privilege

Sam has acted in a number of cases before the Employment Tribunals which involve complex points of legal privilege and is readily able to advise in this potentially difficult area.

Investigations

Sam is experienced in conducting workplace investigations, including those with a crossborder dimension. He has also provided comprehensive training in this area to a number of solicitors firms.

Privacy Issues

Sam has particular expertise in dealing with high-profile cases involving the whole range of privacy orders available in the Employment Tribunals.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 claims

Sam has also been instructed in a number of claims under the PHA 1997 in the civil courts.

General

In addition to his extensive experience in Employment Law matters, Sam has considerable experience of both General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council prosecutions whilst working for Field Fisher Waterhouse in their Professional Regulatory Department. Sam therefore also accepts instructions in this area, defending medical and other professionals who have been prosecuted by their regulatory bodies.

Sam has acted in employment related Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court as sole counsel: Kirk & Ors, R (on the app'n of) v Action for Children [2010] IRLR 699, in which he successfully defended an application for an injunction.

In 2012, Sam was junior to Suzanne McKie QC in the High Court case of Gelpack v Nexpack, an expedited final hearing, concerning enforceability of non-compete, nondealing and non-solicitation clauses; resisting a springboard injunction.

Sam has significant commercial experience, gained largely from his time in the TCI.

This incudes:

• Sam was junior to Ariel Misick QC on a cross border (USA, UK and TCI) contractual dispute involving and on behalf of a well-known international recording artist. The action was worth circa USD$20 million.
• Successfully acted (as sole counsel) for the Securities and Exchange Commission on a cross border fraud related to a Ponzi scheme which defrauded investors of circa USD$600 million. The case involved asset tracing through multiple bank accounts in the US and through a Cook Islands' Trust and eventually into real estate in the TCI worth millions of dollars.
• Sam acted in a Supreme Court (TCI) commercial matter involving an international hotel brand against whom a claim had been brought by 60 claimants. The claim is said to be worth in excess of USD$8million.
• Junior to Ariel Misick QC on a cross border Mareva injunction.
• Obtaining an emergency injunction preventing the issuing of a winding up petition against the largest company in the TCI and a global international brand, following an adverse judgment pending appeal.
• Sole counsel defending an action brought by a developer against a home owner for breach of contract (the home owner was an executive with a New York bank).
• Acted against a utilities provider in an action involving the alleged over-charging.
• Acted for the regulator against a number of financial organisations in relation to money held in bank accounts.
• Advised in a contractual dispute relating to the development of commercial property.
• Instructed to advise on a complex matter revolving around the construction of a contract of insurance as to the meaning of the word "accident". (UK)
• Instructed in a multi-million-pound insurance case in the High Court (Colin Edelman KC and Richard Harrison instructed). (UK).
• Involved in a number of disputes in which allegations of breach of fiduciary duties were at the fore. Most recently before the Privy Council in the case of: Akita Holdings Limited v The Honourable Attorney General of The Turks and Caicos Islands. (Turks and Caicos Islands).

Professional Negligence

Sam was instructed in a multi-million-pound insurance case in the High Court (Colin Edelman KC and Richard Harrison instructed).

Sam is ideally suited to instructions involving employment related negligence given his expertise in both Employment and Professional Negligence Law.

He has represented a defendant builder in a professional negligence action.

Sam has advised in a contractual dispute relating to the development of commercial property.

Employment

Appellate Cases

Thomas has appeared around thirty times in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in England and Scotland, and has acted both led and un-led in the Court of Appeal. He regularly appears against leading counsel.

His cases include:

• Manning v Walker Crips [2023] IRLR 729 (led by Bruce Carr KC)
• Harris v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust [2022] EAT 41
• Gould v St John’s Downshire Hill [2020] IRLR 863
• E.ON Control Solutions v Caspall [2020] ICR 552
• Grange v Abellio London Ltd [2019] ICR D2
• Srivatsa v Secretary of State for Health [2018] EWCA Civ 936, [2018] ICR 1660
• Xerox UK Ltd v Jahan Zeb [2017] EWCA Civ 2137
• Eiger Securities LLP v Korshunova [2017] IRLR 115
• De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 879, [2017] IRLR 844 
• Bridging Loans Ltd v Toombs [2017] EWCA Civ 205
• Gould v Trustees of St John Downshire Hill [2017] 10 WLUK 88
• Chawla v Hewlett Packard Ltd [2015] IRLR 356
• General Dynamics v Carranza [2015] IRLR 43 EAT.
• Brown-Quinn v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1633, [2013] 1 WLR 1740, led by Colin Wynter KC
• McFarlane v Relate Avon Plc [2010] ICR 507

Complex Tribunal Litigation

Thomas is regularly instructed in highly complex Tribunal litigation. In De Souza v Vinci Construction Ltd, Thomas was instructed in relation to five ET claims which resulted in three Preliminary Hearings, lengthy split liability and remedy trials, a costs hearing, eight appeals to the EAT and two hearings in the Court of Appeal. Thomas has also acted for Hewlett Packard and BNP Paribas amongst other clients in highly complex multi-claim cases (the latter involving a claim in which the list of issues initially ran to 80 pages).

High Court and County Court

Thomas is experienced in civil litigation and is familiar with the CPR, drafting High Court pleadings, dealing with interlocutory matters in front of the masters and case management and costs case management conferences and appearing in multi-day civil trials. As well as claims which have settled prior to a hearing, his cases include: Simmonds v Salisbury Foundation NHS Trust (Queen’s Bench, Unreported, 31 March 2021); Grainger v North East London NHS Foundation Trust [2017] IRLR 981; Srivatsa v Secretary of State for Health [2017] ICR D5; and Brown Quinn v Equity Syndicate [2011] EWHC 2661 (Comm), High Ct; [2012] 1 All E.R. 778.

High-Profile Clients and Sensitive Cases

Thomas is particularly used to acting for high profile clients including in relation to sensitive cases such as those involving historical sexual harassment allegations. Thomas is author of a leading text covering anonymity orders and restricted reporting. Recent high-profile clients include a top Premier League football club, a well-known King’s Counsel, a household-name UK billionaire, a tier 1 Barristers’ Chambers and an ultra high net worth Kuwaiti employer.

Investigations and Reports

Thomas is an experienced investigator. He has particular experience handling sensitive and complex allegations by C-suite executives, including into whistleblowing and sexual harassment, and in the regulated financial services context.

England, Scotland, Wales

Thomas has practised in England, Scotland and Wales. Thomas is familiar with the different procedural position in Scotland, having acted in numerous trials in Scottish ETs, including Inverness and Glasgow, and having appeared several times in the Scottish EAT.

Mediation and ADR

Thomas is available for instruction in relation to judicial mediation and other forms of ADR including joint-settlement meetings and private mediations.

Human Rights

Thomas specialises in the application of human rights laws to a range of areas with a particular focus on the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of expression. Thomas is currently acting in remedy proceedings for the former CEO of Scotland’s largest charity, having won the liability trial and established that he was dismissed for discriminatory reasons relating to his Christian beliefs, protected by Article 9. The case attracted coverage in The Times and other news outlets. Thomas also represented Noah Carl, the Cambridge academic dismissed from his post after students protested about his right-wing views. Thomas has advised numerous charities on issues arising from the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation such as the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, considering their effect on religious service providers. He has advised the Metropolitan Police Service on the correct approach to its uniform policy in light of the Equality Act and has advised on the application of Articles 9 & 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to judicial review of decisions restraining freedom of religious expression.

Examples of Thomas’ cases include: acting for a church defending a claim by a vicar in one of the few marriage discrimination claims to reach the EAT: Gould v St John’s Downshire Hill [2020] IRLR 863. In that case Thomas appeared against Karon Monahan QC. The same case had previously been to the EAT (Gould v Trustees of St John Downshire Hill [2017] 10 WLUK 88) where Simler P described Thomas’ “able assistance” both “orally and in writing”. Another President of the EAT, Underhill P, described Thomas' submissions as "cogent" and "clear and helpful" in the leading Article 9 discrimination case of McFarlane v Relate Avon Plc [2010] ICR 507.

In other proceedings Thomas represented a Christian teacher who was under threat of being struck off after making public posts on Facebook, some of which related to his religious beliefs (Evans v General Teaching Council for Wales (2014)) and in Amachree v Wandsworth LBC [2010] EqLR 254 ET he represented a claimant in a multi-day unfair dismissal and religious discrimination claim relating to prosyletism. He has recently advised on an appeal concerning a public body dismissing an employee for their refusal to use the chosen pronouns of transgender service-users.

Thomas is co-author of a report on freedom of speech and freedom of religion which the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, referred to during PMQs in the House of Commons, welcoming the report and quoting Thomas’ words that freedom of religion is a ‘jealously guarded principle’. The report received coverage in the Telegraph and other national press. Thomas was previously author of Bloomsbury Professional's Discrimination Law chapter on religious exceptions to the Equality Act 2010 and he sat on the Bar Council's Equality & Diversity Committee for a number of years – he is now part of the Bar Council's Legislation & Guidance Committee. Thomas drafted the Bar Council’s briefing on the Equality Act 2010 and the Bar Council’s Tackling Sexual Harassment Guide. He has spoken internationally on the topics of human rights and religious discrimination and has spent time working with NGOs at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Thomas also has extensive media experience in this field and has been interviewed on BBC1, BBC News 24, CNN and Channel 4 and on Radio 4's Today Programme and Radio 5 Live. He was featured in The Lawyer, commenting on the European Court of Human Rights' landmark decision in Eweida. 

Thomas has experience of advising on and acting in a range of commercial proceedings in both the Court of Appeal, High Court and County Courts.

Thomas is regularly instructed in High Court and County Court breach of contract disputes, representing both claimants and defendants, often with a cross-over into his employment specialism. Recent cases include acting for a former CEO seeking damages for breach of contract following a power struggle for control of the company. The claim covered granting and vesting of share options, salary and other emoluments. In another recent case Thomas acted for another former CEO seeking to recover bonus payments under a complex contractual arrangement with a franchisee. Thomas is experienced in ADR and negotiating settlements through mediations and round-table discussions. He also has experience advising on restrictive covenant issues including (in the business to business context) advising a prestigious 5 Star London Hotel and advising a leading estate agency brand. He has advised on springboard injunctive relief, non-solicitation and non-dealing clauses and the drafting of clauses to protect legitimate business interests.

Thomas is also experienced in multi-day High Court trials and was instructed by the Secretary of State for Health in a three day High Court breach of contract estoppel and res judicata case (Srivatsa v Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWHC 2916 (KB); [2017] ICR D5): a decision which has been applied by the High Court in other cases including Treetop Investment LLC v Falmouth House Freehold Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 674 (Ch). Thomas continued to act unled when the case went to the Court of Appeal: Srivatsa v Secretary of State for Health [2018] EWCA Civ 936, [2018] ICR 1660. In the same case Thomas appeared in several interlocutory hearings before High Court Masters and an appeal in the High Court. In another case, Thomas acted, again unled, in a four day High Court breach of contract trial (Grainger v North East London NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 2254 (QB); [2017] IRLR 981).

Thomas also has extensive professional negligence experience. He is currently instructed by a corporate claimant in a High Court action involving alleged negligence by a Big Four firm in relation to an iTunes royalty compliance examination. Other recent cases include representing a multi-million pound property company counter-claiming in negligence against solicitors, and acting for a CEO in a claim against an international law firm – both of which were successfully settled at mediation. Thomas has also recently acted as junior to Jolyon Maugham KC in a complex tax case relating to accountancy advice on intangibles relief. In 2017 Thomas appeared in the Court of Appeal as junior counsel in Toombs v Bridging Loans [2017] EWCA Civ 205, instructed by a lender in a case arising out of a valuer's negligence. The case concerned the Nykredit line of authority, considering the largely untested question of how to assess the date of damage in security valuation claims. Thomas previously appeared, unled, in the High Court appeal (Bridging Loans Limited v Toombs [2014] EWHC 4566 (QB)) and at the first instance hearing in front of the High Court Master.

In 2016 Thomas was instructed in a High Court dispute concerning the refusal of a global insurance company to allow an insured to instruct an international law firm under the terms of before-the-event legal expenses insurance. This is one in a long series of cases Thomas has acted in following his instruction as junior counsel at both High Court (Brown Quinn v Equity Syndicate [2011] EWHC 2661 (Comm); [2012] 1 All E.R. 778) and Court of Appeal in Brown-Quinn v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1633; [2013] 1 WLR 1740, described by Burton J as a "test case" on the application of LEI. The case created widespread interest in the legal market and media including articles in The Lawyer, Law Gazette and The Post Online.

Further cases in which Thomas has acted include W v HC where he represented the executor of an estate in a High Court breach of contract claim which resulted in a six figure settlement; Aslam v Camelot plc in which he represented the Defendant in a Norwich Pharmacal application by the Claimant for disclosure of the details of a National Lottery winner; Penycate v Wembley National Stadium in which he represented Wembley stadium in a County Court breach of contract claim; and Revenue & Customs Comrs v Benchdollar [2009] EWHC 1310 (Ch) [2010] 1 All E.R. 174 in which he acted as second junior counsel for HMRC at the pre-trial stages of a multi million pound NIC claim.

Thomas also has experience of acting in cases under the Arbitration Act 1996 and has received in-house arbitration training and in-house mediation training.

Thomas previously sat for many years on the COMBAR Equality & Diversity Committee and has previously attended the COMBAR North America conference, assisting Colin Edelman QC speaking on the topic of the Bermuda Form.

Insurance & Reinsurance

Thomas advises and acts in a range of insurance disputes. He has acted in a series of cases on the scope of an insured’s right to choose their own lawyer under a policy of legal expenses insurance. In the most high profile of these, described by Burton J as a "test case" in the LEI field, Thomas was instructed to appear in the High Court in a dispute concerning the refusal of a global insurance company to allow an insured to instruct an international law firm under the terms of before-the-event legal expenses insurance. Thomas was junior counsel, led by Colin Wynter KC, acting for the Claimants in the 2 day High Court trial of Brown Quinn v Equity Syndicate [2011] EWHC 2661 (Comm); [2012] 1 All E.R. 778. Thomas remained instructed as junior counsel when the Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal where the Law Society received permission to intervene on behalf of the Claimants, and three of Europe's leading insurance companies intervened on behalf of the Defendants. The decision by the appellate court (Brown-Quinn v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1633; [2013] 1 WLR 1740) remains the leading domestic authority and attracted widespread interest in the legal market and media including in articles in The Lawyer, Law Gazette and The Post Online.

Thomas has also recently acted as junior counsel on a Commercial Court professional indemnity coverage claim relating to a Guernsey offshore trust management company. The claim settled successfully shortly before trial. Other examples of Thomas' insurance law practice include advising a Claimant on his position under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (including in relation to the complicated transitional provisions and the insurer’s right to rely on a notification defence). Thomas has also represented Allianz Insurance plc at a contested hearing in the Mercantile Court and advised Arag plc on a defence to a claim relating to an untested provision of the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990 (Hardwicke Motor Company Limited v Arag plc (3YM24927)).

Other examples of Thomas’ cases include advising in relation to losses recoverable under a home insurance policy following the insurer's efforts to avoid the policy for non-disclosure. The advice covered complex matters around recoverability of remote losses and the limits of recovery under the Ombudsman scheme. Separately he has issued an application under section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on behalf of a client following an insurer's refusal to pay out for damage to vintage cars assessed by a joint expert.

Thomas formerly sat on the COMBAR Equality & Diversity Committee and has previously attended the North American COMBAR conference, assisting Colin Edelman KC with an address on the Bermuda Form.

Professional Negligence

Thomas acts in a range of professional negligence disputes, some involving a cross-over with his employment specialism. Thomas is currently instructed by a corporate claimant in a High Court action involving alleged negligence by a Big Four firm in relation to an iTunes royalty compliance examination. Other recent cases include representing a multi-million pound property company counter-claiming in negligence against solicitors, and acting for a CEO in a claim against an international law firm – both of which were successfully settled at mediation. Thomas has also recently acted as junior to Jolyon Maugham KC in a complex tax case relating to negligent accountancy advice on intangibles relief. A common source of instruction relates to failure to meet limitation periods in the short timescale of statutory employment claims. In another 2021 case, Thomas has been instructed by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund in defending a wasted costs application against a member of the Bar arising from alleged negligent representation.

Thomas was instructed as junior counsel in the Court of Appeal in Toombs v Bridging Loans [2017] EWCA Civ 205 in a case in which he had appeared unled at the first instance hearing in front of the High Court Master and in the appeal before HHJ Seymour QC ([2014] EWHC 4566 (QB)). In that case Thomas was instructed by the lender in a claim which arose out of valuer's negligence. The case concerned the Nykredit line of authority, and considered the question of how to assess the date of damage in security valuation claims.

Thomas is experienced in drafting letters of claim and response, particulars of claim and defences and advising on the prospects of success in, for example, PI claims covering solicitors and valuers. Issues commonly addressed cover duty, breach, causation and contributory negligence in relation to various transactions and loans, raising questions of interpretation of the terms of deeds, facility letters and other contractual documentation.

Thomas has lectured on potential claims against intermediaries / brokers and specifically looked at the possible expansion in the role of breach of fiduciary duty in this context. He has also spoken at seminars on current developments in lawyer's negligence claims and on the complex SAAMCO litigation – and has advised an investment company considering an action against a law firm for negligence in relation to a large transaction.

Thomas has previously acted in relation to surveyors. An example of cross-over from his employment practice is Richardson v Copley Clark & Bennett LLP (UKEAT/0866/09) in which Thomas won permission to appeal from HHJ Peter Clarke in a case centring on the reasonable standards expected of a solicitor in a complex conveyance. Thomas also has experience of advising vis-a-vis the practice of solicitors in personal injury work - most recently considering failure to plead certain heads of loss in a valuable claim. In other areas Thomas has, for example, represented a defendant payroll provider in a County Court claim alleging failure to meet the reasonable standards of that profession (Irenicon v Integrated Solutions).

Thomas is a member of the PNBA.

Employment

Talia has extensive experience in employment law, including all areas of discrimination law, whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, redundancy, industrial relations, equal pay, breach of contract, TUPE, Working Time Regulations, restrictive covenants and jurisdictional issues. She regularly represents both respondents and claimants in the employment tribunal, county court, high court and employment appeal tribunal.

Recent work includes:

• Frewer v Google [2022] IRLR 472 – represented Google on appeal considering anonymity orders and redaction of commercially sensitive information
• Usdaw v Tesco  [2022] IRLR 407 – represented Tesco in High Court claim brought to prevent ‘fire and re-hire’ employees on retained pay (led by Bruce Carr KC)
• Cumming v British Airways [2021] IRLR 270 – represented BA on appeal and cross appeal considering ‘particular disadvantage’ in indirect sex discrimination claim
• Davis v P2CG - represented P2CG in high value disability discrimination claim brought by a director; appeared in ET as sole counsel and in EAT led by Bruce Carr KC
• R v Care Home – represented a care home in whistleblowing and constructive unfair dismissal claim brought by former CEO in ET and breach of contract claim brought in High Court 
• De Mello v British Airways – represented BA in complex holiday pay claim considering application of time limits and definition of normal remuneration in ET and EAT
• advising and acting for an NHS Trust in a dispute over the employment status of GPs working in Out of Hours services
• British Airline Pilots Association v British Airways Cityflyer Ltd [2018] EWHC – High Court application for interim declaration in respect of alleged breach of contracts of employment (led by Akash Nawbatt KC)
• Quintiles Commercial Uk Ltd v Barongo (UKEAT/0255/17/JOJ) – considered whether dismissal for a first offence of conduct short of gross misconduct necessarily unfair
• Burdett v Aviva (UKEAT/0439/13/JOJ) – disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claim in which EAT considered the definition of gross misconduct    and the test for justification under s.15 of EqA 2010

Talia contributes to Discrimination Law (Bloomsbury Professional) and is a reviewer for Advocate.

Equality

Talia is very experienced in all areas of discrimination law.  She has been recommended in the directories for her work in high value and complex discrimination claims, with noted expertise in disability discrimination claims.

She represents both respondents/defendants and claimants in the Employment Tribunal, EAT, County Court and SENDIST (First-tier Tribunal). 

Recent work includes:

Employment

• Represented a leading global financial services group in a complex race discrimination claim 
• Advised and represented a US multinational financial institution in multi-claimant high-value race discrimination claims brought in the employment tribunal
• Cumming v British Airways [2021] IRLR 270 – represented BA on appeal and cross appeal considering ‘particular disadvantage’ in indirect sex discrimination claim
• Davis v P2CG - represented P2CG in high value disability discrimination claim brought by a   director; appeared in ET as sole counsel and in EAT led by Bruce Carr KC
• Allen v Paradigm – represented claimant in harassment related to sexual orientation
• P v University of Oxford – represented a university lecturer in complex sex discrimination and whistleblowing claim brought in the ET
• Nadia Essex v (1) Blackman and (2) Lime Pictures – advised and represented television production company in high profile sex discrimination and victimisation claims

Education, Goods and Services

• K v School – represented an independent boarding school in a disability discrimination claim brought by a prospective pupil with significant mobility difficulties in the SENDIST
• P v Bank – represented a bank in a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim brought by a customer in the County Court
• R v Bank – represented a bank in a race discrimination claim brought by a customer in the County Court
• S v University – represented an Oxbridge University on a disability discrimination claim brought by a student regarding a failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation

Restrictive Covenants & Injunctions

Talia has experience both advising on the enforceability of restrictive covenants and representing clients in High Court litigation. 

Cases of interest include:

• Usdaw v Tesco [2022] IRLR 407 – represented Tesco in High Court claim brought to prevent ‘fire and re-hire’ employees on retained pay (led by Bruce Carr QC)
• Riddler t/a Oceanfish  v Wierzbicki [2021] EWHC 2964 – represented Oceanfish in an application for an injunction enforcing post-termination restrictive covenants  
• Colloids v Unite – represented Colloids in an application for an injunction restraining the union from calling strike action
• advised a technology company on the enforceability of its non-compete clause
• advised global distributor in energy sector on application for injunction against former account manager for breach of confidentiality obligations 
• advised former employees on defence to application for injunction and claim in the High Court for breach of confidentiality obligations and fiduciary duties 
• advised and represented recruitment consultants and a leading recruitment company on defending an application for an injunction for breach of restrictive covenants and breach of confidence in the High Court, as well as drafted the Defence

Industrial Relations

Talia has been involved in a number of claims arising out of industrial disputes and is frequently instructed by organisations within the heavily unionised healthcare, transportation and education sectors. 

Cases of interest include:

• advised global technology company operating in the gig economy on recognition agreement (led by Andrew Burns KC)
• Usdaw v Tesco [2022] IRLR 407 – represented Tesco in High Court claim brought to prevent ‘fire and re-hire’ employees on retained pay (led by Bruce Carr KC) 
• advised airline on complex reorganisation in response to Covid-19 crisis as part of a team
• Colloids v Unite – represented Colloids in an application for an injunction restraining the union from calling strike action
• instructed by British Airways in relation to the wetleasing of aircraft from Qatar Airways during industrial action
• advised Heineken in respect of its collective agreements
• led by Bruce Carr KC in an application for an injunction against the Prison Officers Association
• instructed by a bus company in respect of potential injunction to prevent recent strike action
• represented British Airways in a claim for trade union detriment arising from a cabin crew dispute
• represented a trade union in a claim for race discrimination brought by an trade union member against a trade union representative.

Investigations

Talia is a highly experienced specialist in employment law. She is particularly experienced in carrying out investigations into grievances raising harassment, discrimination and whistleblowing allegations. Recent experience includes carrying out multiple investigations for a global technology company investigating allegations of sex discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing made against members of the senior leadership team.

Education

Talia is recommended in Legal 500 as a leading junior in Education.  She has experience representing both claimants and defendants in the County Court, SENDIST (First-tier Tribunal) and Employment Tribunal.  Talia has particular expertise in disability discrimination claims and exclusions.    

Recent work includes:

• represented a university in internal appeals against redundancy dismissals brought by academic staff 
• advised and represented a primary school in a race discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal claim brought by a former teacher 
• represented an independent boarding school in a disability discrimination claim brought by a prospective pupil with significant mobility difficulties in the SENDIST
• represented an Oxbridge University on a disability discrimination claim brought by a student regarding a failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation
• represented a University in a breach of contract claim brought by a PHD student regarding an alleged failure to provide adequate supervision
• represented a well-known London Academy in a series of disability discrimination claims, including in relation to an exclusion
• represented a school in a complex holiday pay claim brought by peripatetic teachers
• represented a prestigious independent school in a disability discrimination claim brought on behalf of one of its pupils in the SENDIST
• successfully represented a school in a disability discrimination claim brought by a prospective pupil challenging the approach taken by the school and LA following the naming of the school on the child's statement
• represented the claimant teacher in a disability discrimination claim brought against Harrow School in the ET (settled)

Additional Information

Talia has lectured on several subjects.

Recent topics include:

• Anonymity orders and redaction of sensitive commercial information (Frewer v Google) 
• Indirect discrimination
• Safeguarding and employment law related issues within the education sector
• Disability discrimination
• Anti-Strike Injunctions and Actions Against Striking Employees
• Age Discrimination
• Changes to Terms & Conditions

Employment

Laura has a wealth of experience representing both claimants and respondents in all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, unfair and wrongful dismissal, redundancy, whistleblowing, TUPE, breach of contract, and unlawful deduction from wages. She is involved with cases in an advisory capacity from the early stages, and appears in tribunals and the EAT. She also advises and represents parties in injunctive proceedings and bonus claims in the High Court.

Laura represents a wide range of clients including Apple, British Airways, Barclays, American Airlines, BAA, Harrods, Marks & Spencer, Primark, the Metropolitan Police, Goldman Sachs International and the BBC. She also represents charities, local authorities and shop floor workers.

• Jamiluddin v (1) British Airways (2) Tim Steeds (3) Willie Walsh (2012) – Laura was led by Ingrid Simler QC and instructed to represent all three Respondents in complex race, religion and disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and unlawful deduction from wages claims. The case gathered a large media interest given its sensitive subject matter (alleged terrorist plots and the involvement of government organisations) and personal allegations against the former CEO, Willie Walsh
• P v CBRE (2012) - Laura was instructed by the Claimant, a large international commercial real estate advisor, to advise on the enforceability of its contractual provisions relating to the claw back of bonus payments on termination of employment. The contractual provisions apply to a high proportion of its senior employees. The matter now proceeds against one such employee in the High Court. Laura is being led by Bruce Carr QC
• S v G & J & T (2011) – Laura was instructed as junior to Suzanne McKie, and represented all three Respondents - a global law firm, and two senior partners in its employment team. The claimant alleged disability discrimination. The case was extremely sensitive given the nature of the First Respondent’s business, the seniority of the other named Respondents, and other allegations against a number of senior employees within the firm
• Kurumuth v. NHS Trust North Middlesex University Hospital UKEAT/0524/10/CEA - Laura represented the Respondent in a claim alleging unfair dismissal in the context of the immigration rules and the right to work. She persuaded the EAT to take a generous view of the employment tribunal’s judgment below, notwithstanding it got the burden of proof wrong. IDS Brief and the ELA Newsletter reported the EAT's judgement as suggesting that it is reasonable for employers to dismiss employees with uncertain immigration status
• Lambden v. Henley Rugby Football Club UKEAT/0505/08 – Laura successfully represented the Respondent at both the ET and EAT. The principal rugby coach claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on the grounds of age. Although there were numerous factors more consistent with employment, the claimant’s choice to be treated as an independent contractor was incompatible with him being an employee

Personal Injury

Laura has a busy personal injury practice drafting pleadings and schedules, advising on liability and quantum, and representing claimants and defendants in fast track and multi track matters. She is instructed in all areas of personal injury work, including occupier's and employers' liability matters, claims against local authorities and road traffic accident disputes. She also has experience dealing with LVI and credit hire claims. As well as privately funded and LEI work, Laura accepts instructions on a CFA basis. Laura also appears for interested parties at inquests.

Employment

Recent work includes:

• Capita v Ali, CA – whether it is discrimination for shared parental leave to be paid at less than maternity leave (led by Andrew Burns QC)
• Stuart v Network Rail, EAT – whether an employer can require an employee to take their accrued but untaken annual leave during their notice period in circumstances where there would not otherwise be sufficient notice under the Working Time Regulations 1998
• Acting for two employees in a maternity discrimination claim – ET upheld the claims against the company and two individually named respondents and made awards for injury to feelings (£20,000 and £25,000), aggravated damages (£5,000 each), and a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code against all three respondents (jointly and severally liable)
• Advising a leading law firm and partner in a team move case
• Acting for the respondent (a leading renewable energy infrastructure companies) in claim for an alleged whistleblowing dismissal brought by its CEO (led by David Craig QC)
• Acting for one of the big 4 accounting firms in an alleged whistleblowing claim
• Acting for the claimant bank in a High Court claim for delivery up and an injunction restraining a former employee from divulging confidential information
• Advising a group with over 70,000 employees whether childcare vouchers should be provided to those on maternity leave and other forms of parental leave

Appellate cases include:

• O’Cathail v Transport for London, CA - the test to be applied by tribunals when considering applications for adjournments on ill-health grounds, and the test to be applied by the appeal tribunal when determining whether to interfere with the decision of the lower court to grant or refuse an application for an adjournment (led by Peter Edwards)
• O’Cathail v Transport for London, CA– whether the EAT should have extended the 42 day time limit for appealing against a ET’s judgment where the employee was disabled and said his disability preventing from lodging the notice of appeal in time
• Kibirango v Barclays Bank Plc and others, EAT – adequacy of reasons in a discrimination claim
• Dossen v Headcount Resources Ltd (In Liquidation) and others, EAT – whether the ET erred in striking out 2 of a number of allegations of discrimination
• Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Ors v Eioyaccu (2009), EAT – whether an ET substituted itself for that of the employer when determining whether the employer’s investigation into complaints of gross misconduct made against an employee with suspected mental health issues was reasonable in all the circumstances

Lucinda is a co-author of Discrimination Law (Bloomsbury Professional).

Regulatory & Professional Discipline

Lucinda is developing her practice in professional regulatory work and has appeared on behalf of the General Dental Council. She has also recently been instructed as a junior on behalf of the Bar Standards Board.  

Additional Information

2004 - Whilst at Harvard Lucinda worked on the amicus curiae brief for the class action (sex discrimination) brought by 1.6 million plaintiffs against Wal-Mart.

July-Sept 2002 - Lucinda was an intern at the Capital Appeals Project, New Orleans, Louisiana (death penalty appeals)

Personal Injury

Jonathan is instructed in all aspects of personal injury work. He primarily undertakes work at multi-track level. He is regularly instructed in claims with a value of between £50,000 and £500,000 and as a junior in catastrophic cases.

In addition he regularly appears at coroner’s inquests in cases involving accidents at work, deaths in custody and deaths in hospitals.  He is experienced in costs matters.

Jonathan is the joint author with Robert Weir KC of the chapter on the liability of public authorities for Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service.

Examples of work:

• Obtained a settlement of £400,000 for a young man who had suffered a serious knee injury in a motorcycle accident.
• Obtained a settlement of £125,000 for a Claimant who suffered nervous shock following a serious explosion at the chemical plant where he worked.  The Claimant's colleague was killed.  Liability was denied on the basis that the Claimant was to be treated as a secondary and not a primary victim.
• Successfully represented a Claimant at trial who had developed chronic low back pain after an accident at work. The judge rejected the evidence of the Defendant's orthopaedic surgeon and awarded the Claimant damages in full in the sum of £196,000.
• Successfully represented the Claimant at trial in a claim arising out of a trip on a bollard placed in the highway that was not illuminated at night. The judge accepted the argument that the act of placing the bollard in the highway was a positive act that created a hazardous obstruction at night thus casting upon the highway authority a common law duty to light the bollard.
• Instructed to represent the Claimant in a living mesothelioma case which included representing him at a deposition hearing.
• Obtained permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal in respect of a judgment dismissing a claim arising out of alleged breaches by the Defendant of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 in respect of the Claimant’s employment on the radar stations at a sea port. The claim subsequently settled.
• Junior to Robert Weir QC in a catastrophic spinal injury claim involving complex issues relating to the liability in tort of public authorities.
• Junior to Robert Weir QC in a claim arising from a diving accident in the territorial waters of Saudi Arabia. The case involved issues as to the scope of the law of tort in Saudi Arabia as well as complex issues on liability and quantum. The claim settled at trial.
• Junior to Stephen Killalea QC in various catastrophic injury claims.
• Represented the Claimant at various interlocutory hearings in the High Court in a catastrophic neurotrauma case. The Claimant was a highly successful hairdresser and fashion photographer who lost his career.
• Advised on issues of conflict of interest relating to the disclosure of a solicitor’s file in respect of a claim brought on behalf of a patient that had settled in 2005.
• Represented the family of the deceased at the inquest into the death of Philip Marsden who was fatally shot by Staffordshire Police.
• Regularly instructed to act for Claimants in actions brought under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992.

Industrial Disease

Jonathan undertakes the full range of asbestos related disease claims, as sole counsel and as junior.

Highlights include:

• Succeeding for the claimant in Smith v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWHC 1954 (QB), an asbestosis claim where liability as firmly in dispute.
• Acting as junior to Rob Weir KC at all levels in the Cape documents litigation: Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings [2020] A.C. 629.
• Instructed on various settled and ongoing mesothelioma cases.

Regulatory & Professional Discipline

Jonathan is developing a regulatory practice and is keen to expand in this area.

Recently he successfully defended a consultant maxillo-facial plastic surgeon in fitness to practice proceedings before the General Medical Council.  It was alleged that the Defendant’s fitness to practice was impaired by reason of misconduct arising out of a series of rhinoplasty procedures.  After a two week hearing the prosecution was dismissed. 

Jonathan is also instructed by the General Dental Council.

Clinical Negligence

Jonathan is an experienced clinical negligence practitioner who accepts instructions at all levels.

Previous work includes:

• Advices on liability and quantum.  Jonathan has recently advised a Claimant in relation to a claim arising from the negligent management of her labour.

• Currently instructed in two cases in which the surgery took place in Belgium giving rise to jurisdictional and choice of law issues.

• Currently instructed on behalf of a consultant plastic surgeon defending a claim arising out of a blepharoplasty procedure. 

• Currently instructed on behalf of a consultant bariatric surgeon defending a claim arising out of gastric band surgery. 

• Instructed by the Claimants in two claims arising from the delayed diagnosis of a stroke.

• Instructed by the Claimants in two claims arising from a negligently performed liposuction operation. 

• Instructed by the Claimants in two claims arising out of the mis-prescription of medication

• Instructed in a fatal accidents claim arising out of the failure to diagnose sepsis.

• Instructed by the Claimant in a claim arising out of negligently performed biliary surgery.

• Appearing at numerous coroner's inquests on behalf of the family of the deceased who has died whilst under the care of medical professionals.  Often there is a clinical negligence claim in the background.  Examples include an alleged failure to diagnose a deep vein thrombosis, a negligently performed bowel resection and a failure to diagnose sepsis.  

   

Professional Negligence

Jonathan is developing a professional negligence practice and is keen to expand in this area.

He principally accepts instructions to act for Claimants and Defendants in claims against solicitors arising from personal injury or clinical negligence claims.

Recent cases include:

• A claim arising out of an asbestosis action which was struck out on the grounds of abuse of process arising out of the Claimant's solicitors handling of the expert liability evidence.

• A claim where it was alleged that there had been a failure to take proper instructions in respect of an offer of settlement from a Claimant who could not speak English. 

• Claims involving under-settlement and missed limitation.

Jonathan has advised in other cases involving solicitor’s negligence and also surveyor’s negligence. 

Financial Mis-Selling and Consumer Credit

Jonathan's work in this field includes claims arising from the mis-sale of payment protection insurance policies, interest rate swap products, investments and mortgages together with a variety of cases with a consumer credit element. He is familiar with the relevant FCA rules and the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Jonathan has acted without a leader in the Court of Appeal in two financial mis-selling cases, succeeding in both.

Cases of interest:

• Scotland v British Credit Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 790; [2015] 1 All E.R. 708; [2015] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 401; [2014] Bus. L.R. 1079; [2015] C.T.L.C. 25: Succeeded on behalf of the Claimants at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. The appeal concerned the scope of and interaction between section 56 and section 140A-C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.  The Court of Appeal found that there was the relationship between creditor and debtor was unfair to the debtors as a result of the mis-selling of PPI by independent salesmen from whom the debtors had purchased windows that were financed by the loan.
• Saville v Central Capital [2014] EWCA Civ 337; [2014] C.T.L.C. 97: Acted for the Claimants at first instance and on their successful appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal concerned the issue of causation in respect of a broker’s breach of the Insurance Conduct of Business Rules (ICOB) of the FSA handbook.
• McWilliam v Norton Finance (UK) Ltd (t/a Norton Finance (In Liquidation) [2014] EWCA Civ 818:  Claimant’s application to re-instate appeal previously dismissed by consent after Defendant came out of administration and entered into a CVA.  Led by Hodge Malek KC.
• Blackhorse v Speak [2010] EWHC 1866 (QB); [2010] C.T.L.C. 211: Led by David Berkley KC  representing the Defendants in a test case concerning the enforceability of a fixed sum loan agreement following the alleged mis-sale of associated payment protection insurance by Blackhorse.
• Goodman v Central Capital Limited [2012] EWHC 8 (QB); [2012] C.T.L.C. 158:  Acted for the Claimants in a claim for breach of ICOB rules in respect of PPI mis-selling.
• C v FOS: Instructed by the Claimants in a judicial review action against the FOS arising out of mortgage mis-selling where the FOS failed to award redress in accordance with the tortious measure of damages. The action settled.
• C v FOS: Instructed by the Claimants in a judicial review action against the FOS arising out of mortgage mis-selling on the grounds that the FOS adopted the wrong approach to the issue of causation in respect of breaches of duty held to have been committed by the broker.  Permission to seek judicial review was granted after an oral hearing.  Proceedings settled thereafter.
• Djamalis v Clydesdale Bank: Instructed by the Claimants in an investment mis-selling action brought pursuant to section 138D FSMA. The claim settled.
• S v HSBC: Instructed by the Claimants in an interest rate hedge mis-selling action brought pursuant to section 138D FSMA, in negligence and under sections 140A-C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claim seeks consequential losses flowing from the Claimants' inability to develop their hotel business while subject to the hedge.

Advices on mortgage mis-selling and timeshare mis-selling.

Currently instructed on several interest rate hedge mis-selling claims.

Employment

Rachel has extensive experience in all areas of employment law including discrimination, unfair dismissal, redundancy, breach of contract, parental rights, discretionary bonus schemes, restrictive covenants, trade union disputes, Working Time, holiday pay, flexible working, jurisdictional issues and the statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures. 

Rachel regularly appears in Employment Tribunals throughout the UK and has represented clients in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and High Court.

Recent cases include:

• Patel v Prada Retail UK Limited (2007) (successfully represented the Respondent in a race discrimination and redundancy claim)
• McGill v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jobcentre Plus) (2008) (successfully represented the Respondent at a PHR in which the Claimant's claims for sex discrimination were struck out)
• Desai v Endeavour Speciality Chemicals Limited (2008)(successfully represented the Respondent in a 3 day unfair dismissal and breach of contract claim)
• Thurlow v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jobcentre Plus) (2008) (successfully represented the Respondent in a 6 day disability discrimination claim)
• Ryan v (1) East Thames Buses (2) Transport for London (2008) (successfully represented the Respondent at a PHR to determine whether the Claimant suffered from a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995)
• Gergas v Pizza Express (2008) (successfully represented the Respondent in a race discrimination claim).
• Kabaka v Harrods (2008) (successfully represented the Respondent in a 5 day race discrimination claim).
• Beatty v British Airways Plc (2008) (successfully represented the Respondent at a PHR in which a number of the Claimant's claims were struck out)

Recent advisory work includes:

• Advising a government department on a disability discrimination claim after an employee was required to undergo an Occupational Health assessment before changes could be made to her workstation
• Advising a company on a high value, multi-day whistleblowing and constructive dismissal claim
• Advising an employee on a redundancy and sex discrimination claim after she was made redundant while on maternity leave
• Advising a multinational company on a claim brought against it for sex discrimination and breach of the flexible working provisions of the ERA 1996
• Advising an employee about the enforceability of a number of restrictive covenants contained in their contract of employment

Rachel advises and acts in the professional negligence field, particularly in cases involving solicitors' negligence.

She also has experience of breach of contract and insurance and reinsurance claims, in addition to claims involving the construction of insurance policy wordings and breach of warranty.

Recent cases include:

• Advising a Defendant on whether standard terms had been incorporated into the contract between it and the Claimant and whether, if they had been, one of the clauses was a penalty clause
• Advising a Defendant on the application of The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003
• Advising an insurer in relation to a solicitors' negligence claim
• Advising a Claimant on coverage issues under an insurance policy
• Advising a Defendant on entitlement to commission based on an analysis of express and implied terms

Tax

Instructed by HM Revenue and Customs to assist panel counsel in a number of cases involving Missing Trader Intra-Community fraud.

Additional Information

In 2003, she interned at the San Francisco office of the California State Public Defender working on habeas corpus appeals on behalf of death row inmates. She authored "Killing kids who kill: an international perspective on the juvenile death penalty in the United States" published in the UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs (7 UCLA J.Int'l L & Foreign Aff 303).

Since 2010 she has been a lecturer at Durham University and has been actively involved as a module leader and tutor for the employment, contract and commercial law modules.

Employment

Shortlisted for Employment Junior of the Year in the 2018 Chambers Bar Awards

Alice has extensive experience of complex, multi-day litigation which is often factually and legally complex and high value. She has in-depth experience of cases involving whistleblowing, discrimination, employment rights and complex contractual issues. Her High Court practice includes interim applications (particularly injunctions) and full hearings involving contractual disputes often involving restrictive covenants, fiduciary duties, duties of fidelity and confidence.

Alice works for both Respondents and Claimants. She has particular expertise acting for clients within the financial services sector.

Examples of Alice’s work are as follows:

• Pelter v Bruro Four [2022] EAT 105: represented the Respondent in an age discrimination claim concerning the provision of permanent health insurance in the ET and EAT, successfully defending the matter.
• Simpson v Cantor Fitzgerald Europe [2021] IRLR 238 (CA)) acting for R a large broker firm in a complex whistleblowing claim brought by an FCA registered employee at an eight day hearing in the Employment Tribunal and on appeal both at the EAT and the Court of Appeal. The appeal challenged multiple aspects of the whistleblowing legal framework.
• Forse & Ors v Secarma Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215: defending corporate and individual clients in relation to springboard and other injunctive relief. The matter was set down for a speedy 12 day high court trial (led by Tom Croxford KC) before it settled. Pending the trial Alice's clients appealed to the Court of Appeal which considered the test on interim applications for springboard relief.
• Multiple investigation including into sexual misconduct and discrimination within law firms, multi-nationals and financial organisations. By way of example undertook an extensive investigation into allegations of bullying and undue pressure made against the CEO of Stobart Group Plc, and reported to the Plc Board (see, for instance, the Financial Times article).

Equality

Alice has extensive experience of equality claims in all areas of discrimination. She has represented both respondents and claimants in the Employment Tribunal, County Court and Employment Appeal Tribunal in complex discrimination claims, and is regularly instructed in multi-day discrimination claims before the Employment Tribunal.

Dismissals & Employment Rights

Alice has extensive experience of dismissal claims and related employment rights, regularly appearing in complicated claims before the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. Many of Alice’s claims involve redundancy or some other substantial reason dismissals and/or whistleblowing.

Restrictive Covenants & Injunctions

Alice regularly advises clients on the enforcement of restrictive covenants and implied contractual terms providing early advice aimed at reducing the likelihood of costly injunctive or other proceedings. She has also advised on the impact of garden leave provisions on restrictive covenants, the duty of fidelity, trust and confidence and fiduciary duties.

Recent cases include:

• Ongoing advice before and during litigation commonly in the context of restrictive covenants being contained within applicable commercial and employment agreements. Representing clients in court where required.
• Defending corporate and individual clients in relation to springboard and other injunctive relief all the way to fully contested hearings. As an example – represented clients (led by Tom Croxford) in the Court of Appeal which considered the test on interim applications for springboard relief (see Forse & Ors v Secarma Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215). Assisted with strategy, disclosure and witness statements prior to matter settling before a 12 day hearing.

Investigations

Alice has conducted numerous investigations for large multinational companies, law firms, financial organisations, recruitment consultants and other organisations into grievances brought by senior employees, serious disciplinary matters and allegations of sexual misconduct.

Recent investigations have featured allegations of bullying and harassment (for a world leading research company), concerns regarding potential gross misconduct by a CF-30 FCA registered employee and multiple investigations into serious sexual misconduct or harassment in law firms.

Commercial Litigation and Disputes

Alice regularly advises and represents both employees and employers on commercial aspects of employment work including:

• Advised a large utility company on its ability to change the executive bonus scheme part way through it.
• Drafted a Part 20 Defence on behalf of a Part 20 Defendant in a commercial claim arising from the sale and purchase of a financial services company.
• Represented the company in proceedings against an ex-employee whom it is believed has taken confidential information in order to compete with the company. Obtained orders for delivery up of devices and instruction of a single joint expert to carry out forensic examination of the devices.

Industrial Relations

Alice has represented employers, unions and individuals in relation to industrial relations and collective consultation requirements relating to TUPE and redundancy.

Personal Injury

Rob accepts instructions in almost all areas of personal injury work. He is presently instructed in accidents at work, asbestos-related litigation, accidents abroad and various public liability claims. He has particular expertise in fatal accident claims.

Rob has a busy road traffic practice. He is involved in accidents that have led to fatality, amputation, or other serious injury, or where there are issues relating to the liability of the MIB or road traffic insurer.

He has successfully concluded multiple head injury claims, those for amputees and many other maximum severity cases. 

Rob has also received instructions on behalf of high earning claimants. Recent clients have included a Pilot, Professor, Consultant Surgeon and Investment Banker.

Rob does not accept instructions in claims with a value below £100,000, unless there is a particularly interesting point of law or procedure. He would expect to act without a leader in the vast majority of sub-catastrophic cases. 

Some examples of recent work:

• Hicks v Young [2015] EWHC 1144 (QB) Successful claim for Claimant who jumped from moving taxi and sustained very severe brain injuries. Ground-breaking authority on causation in intentional torts. Retained for appeal in April 2016. Led by Steve Killalea QC.
• Ramirez v Nature Port Reception Facilities Ltd (2015) High value, high profile fatal accident claim following explosion at the Port of Gibraltar. Liability and quantum in dispute. Challenge to prevailing discount rate in Gibraltar. Settled at mediation with adjusted discount rate. Acted alone against Leading Counsel. 
• B v R (2015) Long term representation of a young woman with multiple injuries of the upmost severity (numerous fractures, incontinence, chronic pain, etc). First instructed 2011; liability compromised days before trial in 2013; claim concluded for £650k in 2015.  Sole counsel throughout.
• A v National Grid Plc (2013) Traumatic brain injury and polytrauma to a young man who aspired to join the Fire Service.  Settled a few days before trial for £900k.
• B v Aviva & Another (2013) Fatal accident claim following death of entrepreneur.  Settled at round table meeting for £675k.
• G v Haden Drysys International Limited (2013) - Fatal Accident Claim arising from tragic death of Claimant’s husband from asbestosis. Complex issues of quantum. Compromised shortly before trial for £415k.
• Harvey v Plymouth City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 860 Junior Counsel for Claimant in catastrophic injury claim in occupiers' liability.  Successful at first instance but overturned by the Court of Appeal. Led by Stephen Killalea QC
• Barber v Nuthal (2010) Successful appeal to the High Court against dismissal of RTA claim by a Recorder.  Judgment on appeal for 100% of the claim

Clinical Negligence

Rob has acted in medical and dental negligence claims. He is instructed by many of the major firms including Irwin Mitchell, Pattinson & Brewer and others.

Rob has particular experience in:

• Obstetric / Gynaecological claims – birth injuries (typically hypoxia), stillbirths and failure to manage pregnancies 
• Gastroenterological claims – misdiagnosis, substandard surgery, failure to intervene
• Negligent or delayed spinal surgery - typically involving cauda equina syndrome
• Delayed oncological diagnosis
• Necrotising fasciitis  
• Fatal Accident claims
• Claims involving the negligence of a general practitioner

Recent notable cases include:

• EGW v York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (2015)  High value claim for child Claimant who sustained cerebral palsy due to negligence at birth. Settled Schedule alone. Compromised with Robert Glancy QC after a JSM.
• R v X Trust (2015) Delayed spinal surgery for developing cauda equina syndrome. Instructed on behalf of medical Professor. Liability denied. Case settled after proceedings served.
• H v X Trust (2015) Perforation of colon during gastrointestinal surgery leading to sepsis and premature death.
• W v X GP & Y Trust (2015) Failures to undertake adequate vascular examination leading to lower limb amputation. 
• O v C University Health Board (2013) Negligent spinal surgery leading to causa equina syndrome.  Led by Rob Weir QC. 
• Large number of birth injury claims, both settled and ongoing.

Accidents Abroad & International Travel

Chambers UK 2016 singled out Rob as a barrister noted for his expertise in cases involving injuries abroad.

Rob is comfortable with the full range of jurisdictional issues and has acted in cases involving disputes arising from, for example, direct rights of action against a foreign insurer, service out of the jurisdiction, and choice of law contests.

In group actions, Rob enjoys rolling up his sleeves and working in a team with his Solicitors. He is experienced in relation to accidents at sea and in resorts.  

Some examples of notable cases include:

• Bradie Perkins v TUI UK Ltd (2016): high value claim for life-threatening conditions developed by a teenager while on holiday in Turkey. He contracted e.coli, Giardiasis and the kidney condition HUS which were attributable to the hotel's negligence. The claimant has been awared a six-figure out-of-court payout by the travel company, offering him peace of mind in the event of future kidney failure. The case was widely reported in the national press.
• C v R S Holidays (2015) Claim for young woman who developed arthritis allegedly as a result of gastric illness contracted on holiday in Egypt. C in work. Polarised expert evidence on causation and prognosis. JSM unsuccessful but case settled shortly after PTR.
• Emslie v RII, Inc (2015) Spinal injury (tetraplegia) in roll over of an ‘all terrain vehicle’ that C claims was unsafe to drive on a slope.  Previous proceedings in America. High value, cross-jurisdictional, catastrophic injury claim. Led by Stephen Killalea QC. 
• F & 40 Others v TUI UK (2015) Group action for illness at hotel.
• A & 275 Others v A Tour Operator (2013) Large group action for illness abroad.
• X v Y Association (2012) – Tetraplegia to young man following in diving accident in Baltic States. Liability and quantum compromised. Led by Stephen Killalea QC.

Rob is a member of TATLA.

Neurotrauma

Rob has received instructions in multiple brain injury claims, ranging from catastrophic injury to subtle brain injury and post-concussion syndrome.

Rob is in demand as Junior Counsel in catastrophic brain injury claims. He is distinguished by having been led by every personal injury Silk in Chambers.

Some examples of Rob's recent work (instructed as sole counsel):

• K v A (2014) Traumatic brain injury.  Settled at JSM for a provisional award of £750k.
• M-F v S (2014) Subtle traumatic brain injury. Settled at JSM in November 2014 for £375k.
• A v National Grid Plc (2013). Traumatic brain injury and polytrauma to a young man who aspired to join the Fire Service.  Settled a few days before trial for £900k.

Spinal Injury

Rob is one of only 30 junior barristers recommended by the Spinal Injuries Association on its approved list of catastrophic injury barristers and is one of only 3 called in or after 2000.

Rob is distinguished by having been led by every personal injury silk in Chambers.

Some recent examples of Rob's caseload include:

• Emslie v RII, Inc (Ongoing) Spinal injury (tetraplegia) in roll over of an ‘all terrain vehicle’ that C claims was unsafe to drive on a slope.  Previous proceedings in America. High value, cross-jurisdictional, catastrophic injury claim. Led by Stephen Killalea QC.
• Barton v Rose - Catastrophic spinal injury.  Instructed as Junior Counsel alongside Rob Weir QC to deal with 8 day quantum trial
• X v Y Association – Tetraplegia to young man following in diving accident in Baltic States.  Compromised at limit of insurer's indemnity. Led by Stephen Killalea QC.

Financial Mis-Selling and Consumer Credit

In addition to his primary practice areas, Rob has developed a niche in the field of financial mis-selling. Rob has experience in claims arising from payment protection insurance policies mis-sold to consumers, interest rate hedging products mis-sold to small and medium sized companies and a variety of other claims with a consumer credit element.

Rob is able to draw from long experience as a common-law barrister and more recent experience as a Deputy District Judge to litigate such cases effectively. He has worked exclusively on behalf of claimants.

Additional Information

Rob lectures when invited. Last year he delivered a 3-part series on quantum. This year he has spoken on fatal accidents, disclosure, brain injury (in a clinical negligence context) and covert surveillance. Appropriately enough, the latter was the subject of his first webinar.

Shaen has extensive experience in the field of international arbitration:

• Oil and Gas Company v. National Oil Major (2022). Shaen acted for a national oil and gas company in its defence of an arbitral claim for fraud and breach of contract arising from his client’s termination of a farm-out agreement. The claim was valued at US$1 billion. Following a two week hearing the tribunal dismissed all claims. Shaen was led by Colin Edelman QC.
• National Electricity Company v. Electricity Supply Company (2021). Shaen acted for a national electricity company in its successful arbitral claim for payments for power supply and declaratory relief. Shaen was led by Paul Downes QC.
• Mining Company v. Electricity Utility (2018). Arbitration concerned a dispute over an agreement concerning tariff migration. Shaen was instructed for the respondent.
• A v. B (2017) QB (Knowles J). Shaen appeared successfully for the respondent in resisting an application to set aside an order permitting service by an alternative method on lawyers in India of an order giving permission to enforce an English arbitration award as a judgment.
• Mining Company v. Electricity Utility (2016). Acted successfully for the respondent, a national electricity utility, in an arbitration concerning the interrelationship between regulatory directions and private contractual rights. The claimant withdrew following receipt of the respondent's pre-hearing brief (drafted by Shaen). Shaen was led by Colin Edelman QC.
• Oil Major v. Oil Companies (2016). Acted successfully in arbitral proceedings for a national oil company in a claim against various oil companies for the recovery of monies misapplied under a commercial trust. Shaen had previously acted for the same client in a related arbitration in which his client successfully resisted a claim for US$35million. He was led by Antony Zacaroli QC.
• Hospital Owner v. Hospital Management Company (2015). Shaen acted successfully in a claim brought by the owner of a leading hospital against the hospital's former management company. The claim concerned unlawful commissions taken by senior management staff in respect of procurement contracts and involved detailed forensic investigations and extensive and complex pleading by Shaen of the statement of claim. The case was settled advantageously after receipt of the statement of claim.
• Electricity Company v. Oil and Gas Company (2015). Shaen acted for the respondent in respect of the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award by the claimant in the English High Court. Shaen advised, drafted numerous documents and was closely involved in procedural decisions. The case was settled before the first hearing. Shaen was led by Lord Grabiner QC.
• Electricity Utility v. Manufacturer (2014). Shaen successfully acted for a national electricity utility in this UNCITRAL arbitration, concerning the supply and installation of transformers in a hydro-electric dam. In December 2014 the tribunal awarded Shaen's client over 20 million euros which was the full sum claimed plus interest. At the full hearing of the matter he was led by Colin Edelman QC. Shaen advised throughout the dispute and was responsible for all pleadings.
• Oil Major v. Oil Major (2014). Acting for an international oil major in relation to a high profile dispute concerning the termination of a farm-out agreement.
• Oil Major v. Government and others. Advised a national oil company in relation to contractual issues arising from a troubled gas exploration and development project.
• Acted for an international oil and gas company in defending an arbitral claim for breach of a farm-in agreement concerning an off-shore drilling project.
• Acted for three national oil companies in defending a US$1.276 billion claim in an arbitration concerning rights to an oil transportation system (led by Colin Edelman QC). Claim settled following full hearing in 2010.
• Acted for a national electricity company in a US$50 million claim in an arbitration concerning alleged exclusive rights of power supply (led by Colin Edelman QC).
• Acted, successfully, in an expert determination concerning a petrochemical construction project.
• Advising on issues arising from international supply agreements.