Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales
Employment Law, Civil and Commercial High Court, Human Rights, Regulatory investigations and advice, Professional negligence actions, Judicial Review.
2006 - to date Principal and co-founder of TMP Solicitors LLP
2001 to 2006 Partner Grant Saw Solicitors LLP
1996 Fellow Institute of Legal Executives
1999 to 2001 University of Westminster Law Society Finals
Jacqueline has extensive experience of advising employers and employees on employment rights and other business-related matters. She has represented an impressive portfolio of clients ranging from public institutions to senior executives. She also brings a whole array of knowledge and experience to her job role. She is a tough negotiator and expert tactician. She leaves no stone unturned when acting in the best interests of her clients.
Jacqueline deals with the full range of employment matters for employers and employees, including:
- Sensitive HR issues, including boardroom disputes, executive appointments and departures, bonus and discrimination issues;
- Advising on recruitment and termination of employees/executives including employment status, consultancy arrangements;
- Bringing and defending all aspects of discrimination and unfair dismissal claims in the Employment Tribunal and County/High Court;
- Bringing and defending claims in the appellant courts such as Employment Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court;
- Advising on business transfers and outsourcing including the implications of TUPE;
- Negotiating settlement packages for employers and employees/senior executives;
- Advising on all aspects of disciplinary investigations and hearings;
- Dealing with the management of long term sickness absences;
- Dealing with sensitive HR issues, including boardroom disputes, executive appointments and departures, bonus and discrimination issues;
Jacqueline’s legal experience extends into many other areas. A passionate believer in access to justice.
Jacqueline has specialist knowledge and expertise in dealing with stress claims. She advises employees on bringing compensation claims for stress and depression caused by unlawful discrimination or bullying and harassment in the workplace. Jacqueline also advises employers on defending stress claims.
Jacqueline is an expert in court and tribunal rules and is able to bring or defend claims using her extensive practical knowledge and experience on procedural rules.
Judicial Review is a procedure in English Law whereby courts supervise the exercise of power, often by a public. A person who feels that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Court for judicial review of a decision. If the court finds the decision unlawful it may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages.
In 2016 Jacqueline successfully represented Miss M in her judicial review claim against the Secretary of State for not following legal process when making a decision about Miss M’s human rights.
Pimlico Plumbers Limited and Anor v Smith  EWCA Civ 51 : employment status
Jacqueline represented Mr Smith in his successful Court of Appeal case in February 2017. Sir Terence Etherton, Master of the Rolls gave lead judgment. The question on appeal was whether the Employment Tribunal was correct to hold in a decision dated 16 April 2012 that Mr Smith was a worker. The Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision that Mr Smith was a worker. The case puts a spotlight on a business model under which operatives are intended to appear to clients of the business as working for the business, but at the same time the business itself seeks to maintain that, as between itself and its operatives, there is a legal relationship of client or customer and independent contractor rather than employer and employee or worker.
Eiger Securities LLP v Miss E Korshunova UKEAT/0149/16 : whistleblowing
Jacqueline represented Eiger Securities in November 2016 in its successful appeal in a whistleblowing case. The Honourable Mrs Justice Slade DBE found that the Employment Tribunal erred in failing to identify any legal obligation, as opposed to guidance, of which the Claimant believed the Respondent to be in breach. Accordingly the finding that the Claimant had made a qualifying disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) section 43B(1) and therefore a protected disclosure was set aside. The finding that the Claimant was subject to a detriment for making a protected disclosure is set aside. The Employment Tribunal also erred in applying the wrong test in considering the claim under ERA section 103A. They applied the test appropriate to a section 47B claim and not that for unfair dismissal. Claims remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for rehearing.
Odu-Obi v Interserve FM Ltd UKEAT/0206/13 : victimisation, issue estoppel and abuse of process;
Jacqueline represented Ms Odu-Obi in an appeal against a tribunal’s preliminary order. The honourable Mr Justice Langstaff (president) upheld Miss Odu-Obi’s appeal. This was an appeal against a decision that whereas the respondent could rely upon actions preceding a date in February 2011, the claimant could not rely upon any matter before that date if to do so would be to criticise the respondent, after a compromise agreement had been reached in respect of the pre-February 2011 events. Appeal allowed. The COT3 did not, as the judge thought, bar complaints about the behaviour of the employer, but rather barred claims arising specifically out of those complaints. The claimant could not fairly be stopped raising relevant evidence, subject to careful case management orders. Estoppel should yield to fairness if and when appropriate, as it was here.
Mardner v Gardner and Ors UKEAT/0483/13 : costs
Jacqueline represented Mr Mardner in his appeal against the refusal to make a cost order. Her Honour Judge Eady QC allowed the appeal. The question to be decided was when deciding it would not be appropriate to make an award of costs (having determined that the threshold for such an award had otherwise been crossed) did the Employment Judge err in taking into account: (1) the fact that the Respondents were volunteers and trustees of a charity and/or (2) that any recovered costs will inure to the benefit of the Claimant's insurers rather than to the Claimant personally?
What Clients say about Jacqueline
Thank you so much and you have been so so wonderful every time I spoke and cried to you. You were so attentive and accommodative Not even one day of all consultations did I feel you were fed up with me since this case took so long to conclude. You are so professionally gifted and to me you were not judgemental. You have a very excellent personality and your warm welcoming smiles really made me comfortable and I felt positive although it was stressful, but with all the advice and guidance, I learnt a lot from you about how to treat a person. Your hard work has taken off a lot of strain and stress.
Once again thank you so much for your help and assistance throughout my trial time. I'll recommend your service to all and sundry when they need you at any point in time for your professionalism and integrity. You are a star!
Thank you for all your support, your belief in his case, your conviction to it and the flexibility you were so willing to afford us to see justice done. We are so very appreciative of all of those things and of course your skilful application of the law.
- The Times Lawyer of the Week – 2 March 2017
- Shortlisted for Solicitor of the Year 2017 by the Law Society.
Running through wheatfields with my dog, Bud the Boxer …!