|Call date: 1992|
|Email: Natasha Joffe||Clerk: Dave Scothern|
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 been involved in a case involving retirement age of judicial officers and represented one of the respondents in the part-time judges pension litigation. She has considerable experience of disability discrimination cases, including those involving specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia.
Natasha has experience of restrictive covenants and injunctions and of advising on and acting in cases where employment relationships give rise to judicial review. Recently Natasha successfully defended a public body in proceedings for an injunction to restrain the body from proceedings with disciplinary proceedings. She also has recent experience of High Court proceedings involving issues including team moves, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty and economic torts.
Natasha also acts 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  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 The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal by the unsuccessful respondent but the appeal was withdrawn after exchange of skeletons.
In recent appellate work, Natasha appeared in the case of London Borough of Islington v Bannon UKEAT/0221/12/KN on service provision changes, in the Court of Appeal in Parekh v Brent London Borough  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  QB 1, CA, Attorney-General v Blake  1 AC 268, HL and Liddiard v Post Office EWCA CIV 940;  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. reasonable adjustments an shared parental leave. 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. She and Lydia co-wrote Mumsnet’s factsheets on family rights.
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 PSL service. She has written occasionally for the Guardian on legal topics and for several years wrote a humourous column on employment tribunals. Recently she has been writing abut the effect of tribunal fees on access to justice.
Natasha’s pro bono work includes work for FRU, the Bar Pro Bono Unit and ELAAS and she has also been involved in representing migrant domestic workers in the employment tribunal. She spent a stint in the US working on Death Row cases. She has been a Visiting Lecturer on the Diploma in Law Course at City University