Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales
The Times Lawyer of the Week – 2 March 2017
Shortlisted for Solicitor of the Year 2017 by the Law Society.
Shortlisted for Sole Practitioner of the Year 2018 by the Law Society.
Winner Boutique Law Firm of the Year 2019 by Modern Law Awards.
Listed as 2019 Hot 100 Lawyer (Litigator) by The Lawyer.
Running through wheatfields with my dog, Bud the Boxer …!
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 v Smith UKSC/2017/0053;  EWCA Civ 51
LORD WILSON: (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Hughes, Lady Black and Lord Lloyd-Jones agree) dismissed Pimlico’s appeal challenging worker status. The result of doing so was that the substantive claims of Mr Smith as a limb (b) worker could proceed to be heard in the tribunal.
His Highness Sheikh Khalid Bin Saqr Al Qasimi v Robinson UK/EAT/ 0238/17 Whistleblowing.
Fraud and illegality. Held:The obligation upon an ET on an interim relief application was necessarily to carry out a summary assessment of the material before it (applying the test laid down in Taplin v Shippam) to determine whether the Claimant was likely to succeed in her claim. In a whistleblowing case, it would need to take a view as to whether the Claimant was likely to succeed in showing that she had made qualifying disclosures, meeting the requirements laid down by section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996. The way in which it needed to approach that exercise would, however, depend upon the particular case. Here (contrary to ground 1) the ET had been entitled to view the communications relied on by the Claimant as linked as part of a chain and to thus take an overall view as to whether she had a pretty good chance of showing she had made protected disclosures and, so far as the matters raised by grounds 2 and 3 were concerned, it had reached a permissible view that she had. Equally, taking the ET’s reasons as a whole (and including its references to those parts of the evidential material that had obviously weighed with it), it had been entitled to take the view that it did on the question of causation, that the Claimant was likely to succeed in showing that the reason for her dismissal had been the disclosures she had made (ground 6). It was, however, not possible to be similarly confident as to the ET’s approach to the public interest element of the protected disclosure requirement (grounds 4 and 5). Whether inadequately reasoned or because the ET had applied the wrong test, it was not possible to see that it had asked itself the question as to whether the Claimant had believed, at the relevant time, that her disclosures were in the public interest (Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed  IRLR 837 CA applied) and that (even allowing for the limited nature of the task on an interim relief application) rendered the ET’s conclusion in this regard unsafe and the appeal would, therefore, be allowed on grounds 4 and 5. The ET had further erred (ground 7) in failing to address the illegality point expressly raised by the Respondent and dealt with in submissions. Whilst there was an obligation on the parties (pursuant to the overriding objective) to notify an ET if they considered it might have inadvertently failed to deal with a point, ultimately the failure was that of the ET itself and the appeal would also be allowed on this basis.
Eiger Securities LLP v Miss E Korshunova UKEAT 0149 16 DM Whistleblowing
Held: 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
Estoppel or abuse of process. Held: Estoppel should yield to fairness if and when appropriate, as it was here: 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.
Jennings v Barts and the London NHS Trust UKEAT/0056/12/DM Disability Discrimination
Held: If a wrong label is attached to a mental impairment a later re-labelling of that condition is not diagnosing a mental impairment for the first time using the benefit of hindsight, it is giving the same mental impairment a different name and, given that whether or not an employer knows or should have known there is a disability is essentially a question of fact (see Wilcox and Birmingham CAB Services Ltd  Eq LR 810), the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the Cross Appellant employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the disability. Although the Employment Tribunal overstated the effect of the judgment in Project Management Institute v Latif  IRLR 579 (contrary to what the Employment Tribunal tended to suggest, it does not place any evidential burden on a Claimant to do more than identify alleged reasonable adjustments) and whilst it is always better for an Employment Tribunal to deal specifically with each suggested adjustment that has been identified by a Claimant, particularly where a CMD has confirmed that those matters are in issue, the Employment Tribunal’s judgment addressed the issue of reasonable adjustments to a sufficient extent and the Appeal must be dismissed.
Bampoe v Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust 
Represented a senior NHS executive in a four weeks complex equality rights and race discrimination claim. The Respondent was represented by (then) Ingrid Simler QC (who later went on to become the President of the EAT).
Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust v Ugiagbe  UKEAT 0068 09 1305
Inferring discrimination and Burden of Proof.Held: Findings of race discrimination by the Employment Tribunal were set aside by the Employment Appeal Tribunal because (a) the acts which were said to be acts of race discrimination were not the ones of which complaint had been made, (b) the Tribunal did not identify the facts from which race discrimination could be inferred, (c) the Tribunal did not explain why race discrimination could be inferred from the facts which it found proved and (d) for other reasons.
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.