|Call date: 1992|
|Email: Natasha Joffe||Clerk: Dave Scothern|
Natasha's practice covers all aspects of employment and discrimination law, including team moves, restrictive covenants and injunctions, together with human rights, public law, education law, and professional negligence.
Areas of practice
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 (including 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 the equal opportunities implications of policy decisions She has experience in specialist areas such as the Police Regulations and issues arising from Maintaining High Professional Standards in the Modern NHS. 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 and raise human rights issues. Recently Natasha successfully defended a public body in proceedings for an injunction to restrain the body from proceeding with disciplinary action. She also has recent experience of High Court proceedings involving team moves, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty and economic torts.
Natasha also has extensive experience of acting 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, EAT, on the meaning of section 98(2)(d) of the ERA 1996 and the construction of immigration statutes.
Natasha's recent appellate work includes appearing in the Court of Appeal in Parekh v Brent London Borough  EWCA Civ 1630 (on the status of lists of issues in employment tribunal cases) and in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London Borough of Islington v Bannon (UKEAT/0221/12/KN) on TUPE and service provision changes and in Rabess v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (2014) on identifying the effective date of termination.
Other notable cases in which Natasha has appeared include Hussain & Livingston v Lancaster City Council  QB 1, CA (about local authority liability in nuisance and negligence for acts of racial harassment by council tenants), Attorney-General v Blake  1 AC 268, HL (restitutionary damages and freedom of expression) and Liddiard v Post Office  EWCA Civ 940;  Emp LR 784 (fairness of dismissal for conduct outside workplace (football hooliganism) and application of Human Rights Act).
Natasha also accepts instructions in the following areas: education law, public law, and professional negligence.
Conditional fee agreements
Natasha accepts work on a conditional fee basis in appropriate cases.
Direct access work
Natasha accepts direct access instructions in appropriate cases including where advice is required on compromise agreements.
Natasha is a contributing author to Discrimination Law (Bloomsbury Professional, looseleaf), a contributor to the Halsbury's Laws Discrimination volume, and the co-author of the Liberty/NATFHE Guide to Human Rights in the Workplace. She contributes to the LexisNexis Employment PSL service. Natasha has written occasionally for the Guardian on legal topics and wrote the humorous column An employment tribunal lawyer writes. Natasha's recent writing includes a contribution to the debate about the effect of employment tribunal fees on access to justice.
Natasha has given seminars on a wide range of subjects within her practice areas. Recent topics include justification of age discrimination, reasonable adjustments and shared parental leave. Natasha has extensive knowledge relating to family rights at work and has contributed to projects for Mumsnet such as Mumsnet’s factsheets on family rights.
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 did a stint in the US working on Death Row cases.