Contact Us

020 3693 2545

TMP Solicitors

40 Bank Street

Canary Wharf


E14 5NR

0844 778 7328 - Fax

  • LinkedIn Social Icon


Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority SRA No: 468968

Jacqueline McGuigan

Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales

Recent Accolades:

  • 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; [2017] 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.

Read Supreme Court Case details

Mr R Jakkhu v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd UKEAT/0276/18/LA

The ET had found that the appeal had “vanished” by reason of the Claimant’s subsequent reinstatement. By adopting this approach the ET failed to consider whether the act of dismissal had been a detriment.

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.



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 [2011] 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 [2007] 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 [2011]

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 [2010] 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.



Miss M: 
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. 


Mr SP:
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!

Mr P:
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.