Natasha Joffe

Call date: 1992
Email: Natasha Joffe Clerk: Dave Scothern
Areas of Law: Employment & Discrimination, Professional Negligence, Public Law
Practice summary

Natasha's practice covers all aspects of employment and discrimination law, together with public law.

In the field of employment and discrimination, Natasha has worked for a wide range of respondents and claimants. In particular she has represented a large number of local authorities and other public bodies (police forces, fire authorities and NHS trusts) in long and complex discrimination and whistle-blowing cases, sometimes involving senior officers. She has also frequently advised public bodies on higher level policy matters such as the TUPE implications of various contracting arrangements and on the equal opportunities implications of policy decisions. She has recently advised in a case involving retirement age of judicial officers. She has experience of restrictive covenants and injunctions and of advising on and acting in cases where employment relationships give rise to judicial review.

Natasha has also acted for union-represented claimants and for individuals in high-value discrimination cases. She acted for the successful claimant / appellant in Kelly v University of Southampton [2008] ICR 357 on the meaning of section 98(2)(d) of the ERA 1996 and the construction of immigration statutes. The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal by the unsuccessful respondent but the appeal was withdrawn after exchange of skeletons.

Natasha recently appeared in the case of London Borough of Islington v Bannon UKEAT/0221/12/KN on service provision changes and in the Court of Appeal in Parekh v Brent London Borough [2012] All ER (D) 70 (Dec) on the use of lists of issues in employment tribunals

Other interesting cases in which Natasha has appeared include Hussain v Livingston v Lancaster City Council [2000] QB 1, CA, Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, HL and Liddiard v Post Office EWCA CIV 940; [2001] EMP L.R. 784

Natasha frequently gives talks and seminars to solicitors and public sector employment lawyers and HR professionals. Recent topics include: justification of age discrimination and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Natasha has a particular interest in family rights at work and together with Lydia Seymour has recently taken part in a Q & A for the website Mumsnet.

Natasha accepts direct access instructions and has extensive experience of advising on compromise agreements.

Natasha is a contributing author to Bloomsbury Professional’s Discrimination Law (looseleaf), a contributor to Halsbury's Laws (Discrimination Volume) and the co-author of the Liberty / NATFHE Guide to Human Rights in the Workplace. She has also contributed to LexisNexis' Employment LawKnowhow. She has written occasionally for the Guardian on legal topics and for several years wrote a humourous column on employment tribunals. Her pro bono work includes work for FRU, for ELAAS and has also been involved in representing migrant domestic workers and she spent a stint in the US working on Death Row cases. She has been a Visiting Lecturer on the CPE course at City University.

A selection of recent cases
  • Parekh v Brent London Borough 
  • [2012] All ER (D) 70 (Dec) [2012] EWCA Civ 1630
  • Status of lists of issues in the employment tribunal


  • London Borough of Islington v Bannon 
  • UKEAT/0221/12/KN
  • TUPE: whether there has been a service provision change


  • Daines & Ors v Saunders
  • Acted for multiple claimants in respect of national minimum wage and holiday pay claims


  • Kelly v University of Southampton 
  • [2008] ICR 357
  • meaning of section 98(2)(d) of the ERA 1996 and the construction of immigration statutes


  • Liddiard -V- Post Office 
  • [2001] EWCA CIV 940; [2001] EMP L.R. 784 
  • Dismissal for conduct outside workplace: football hooliganism, application of HRA 


  • Attorney-General -V- Blake 
  • House of Lords [2001] 1 AC 268; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 625; [2000]4 All E.R. 385; [2000]2 All E.R. (Comm) 4 
  • Restitutionary damages, freedom of expression 


  • Hussain & Livingstone -V- Lancaster City Council 
  • CA [2000] Q.B. 1; [1999]2 W.L.R. 1142; [1999] 4 All E.R. 125 
  • Junior to Rupert Jackson Q.C.; decision about local authority liability in nuisance and negligence for acts of racial harassment by council tenants 


  • Martin -V- Unilever 
  • acted for successful applicant in a sex discrimination case about serial non-promotions. Led at the remedies stage by Cherie Booth Q.C. 


  • Lewis -V- Chief Constable West Midlands Constabulary 
  • acted for plaintiff in case against West Midlands Serious Crime Squad. Settled for £200,000
Natasha Joffe