Nathan Roberts

Contact Nathan: nathanroberts@matrixlaw.co.uk | +44 (0)20 7404 3447

Contact Nathan's Practice Team (Team M): TeamM@matrixlaw.co.uk

Nathan Roberts acts across employment, discrimination, public and other related practice areas, including human rights and education.

As sole counsel, he has acted in the High Court, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Court of Appeal; as junior counsel, he has acted in the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights.

Recommended by both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500, Nathan is described as “excellent in cross examination” and as “sharp, responsive, thorough in his preparation and quick on his feet”.

He is on both the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s panel of counsel and the Attorney General’s civil panel. He was appointed to each panel in his first year of eligibility.

Nathan was nominated for Employment Junior Barrister of the Year at the Legal 500 Bar Awards 2022.

Employment

Nathan is instructed in employment cases in the High Court, in the Employment Tribunal, and on appeal. He has significant experience in commercial disputes, restraint of trade claims, and claims under statute, including discrimination, whistleblowing, and working time claims. He is routinely instructed in cases that are particularly complex, high-value, or of public interest.

High Court:

• Red Bull Technology Limited v Fallows [2022] – acting for a senior Technical Director in a dispute over notice provisions and restraint of trade in an F1 racing dispute.
• H v Jefferies International Limited [2021] – sole counsel for a financial services company seeking to recover a bonus payment in the region of £800,000.
• F v S & Ors [2021] – successfully restraining a whole team move.
• Square Global Ltd v Leonard [2020] IRLR 607– restraint of trade financial services trial, enforcing non-compete restrictions for 12 months.
• C v B [2020] – successfully resisting an interim injunction application for delivery up of documents and enforcement of confidentiality clauses.

Employment Tribunal:

• Zabelin v SPI Spirits (UK) Ltd [2022] – representing the Group Chief Investment Officer of an international business in a successful Covid-related whistleblowing detriment and dismissal claim, resulting in an award of over £1.6 million.
• Doyle v Goldman Sachs International [2022] – representing an investment bank in a whistleblowing claim for over £20m.
• Bayfield & Jenner v Wunderman Thompson (UK) Ltd [2022] – representing two senior male advertising creatives in a successful three-week sex discrimination and victimisation claim.
• CEO v Retail company [2022] – representing the CEO of a major retailer in a multi-million pound discrimination and contractual dispute.
• Band member v Musician [2022] – representing a band member against a high-profile lead artist for race discrimination.
• Mismaque v Sunrise Brokers LLP [2021] – representing a stock broker in a successful high-value (pleaded at £2.5 million) disability discrimination claim.
• Broadcast journalist v Broadcasting organisation – representing a prominent journalist in an equal pay and race discrimination claim.
• Investment manager v Aviva Ltd [2019] – successfully defending a claim of disability discrimination by an investment manager.
• Butler & Ors v Blinkbox Music Ltd [2016] – a group-litigation case regarding a TUPE transfer in the context of a share purchase, acting as sole counsel for 68 claimants; claim valued at £10m.

Employment Appeal Tribunal:

• Kuwait Investment Office v Hard [2022] ICR 1111 – whether and in what circumstances diplomatic immunity applies to an organisation that alleges it is part of a diplomatic mission.
• Bayo v Ministry of Defence [2022] EAT 17 – the reconsideration test in the context of a military discrimination claim.
• Windle v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2021] – a Meek compliance challenge.
• Chadwick v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd [2021] – time limits for appealing.
• Watson v Hilary Meredith Solicitors [2021] – collateral waiver of privilege and whistleblowing detriment.
• Gan Menachem Hendon Ltd v De Groen [2019] ICR 1023 – novel sex and religious discrimination claim brought by a woman dismissed for cohabiting with her partner, funded and supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
• Chadwick v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd [2019] – strike out at a final hearing and the “interests of justice” test.
• Bamieh v Eulex Kosovo & Ors [2018] – numerous issues of international law, including the legal personality of international organisations.
• Hollinghurst v James Hall & Co [2017] – the burden of proof in detriment claims under both the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010.
• Rackham v NHS Professionals Ltd [2015] – the duty on courts and tribunals to make adjustments for disabled litigants.

Court of Appeal:

• Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] ICR 110 – the test applied to costs-related legitimate aims.
• Harpur Trust v Brazel [2020] ICR 584 – the application of the pro rata temporis principle to part-time workers’ annual leave.
• Bamieh v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2020] ICR 465– the territorial jurisdiction test for co-workers.

Supreme Court:

• Brazel v Harpur Trust [2022] IRLR 867 – consideration of the pay provisions of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and whether annual leave conforms to working time.
• Michalak v GMC [2017] 1 WLR 4193 – acting for the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the appropriate choice of forum for claims of discrimination against qualifications bodies.

Discrimination

Nathan has particular expertise in private and public law discrimination claims, including claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 14 ECHR).

Examples of Nathan’s employment discrimination experience are set out in the Employment section of his profile. They include: Michalak (the appropriate forum for discrimination claims against qualifications bodies); Heskett (costs-related legitimate aims); De Groen (whether the imposition of religious rules constitutes religious discrimination); Rackham (the duties on courts and tribunals to make adjustments for disabled litigants); and Bayfield & Jenner and Mismaque (successful high-value first-instance discrimination claims).

Examples of Nathan’s Public Law discrimination experience are set out in the Public Law section of his profile. His experience includes: H (conflict of rights in surrogacy arrangements); Rowley (whether the sign language provision at the No 10 Covid press conferences violated the duty to make reasonable adjustments for deaf viewers); and FDJ (whether policies on the location of trans female prisoners conflict with the rights of non-trans prisoners).

Nathan also has extensive experience of other private law claims under all parts of the Equality Act 2010, including claims relating to services, goods and facilities; transport; public functions; premises; political parties; and associations. His recent work includes:

• Trans rights – numerous advices to government bodies, a political party, LGBT organisations, and schools on issues relating to trans rights, including on: police searches; devolution and competence; EU law; data collection; children’s rights; and single-sex spaces.
• Wimbledon ban – advising on the lawfulness of Wimbledon’s ban on Russian and Belarussian athletes competing in the 2022 tournament.
• PhD Candidate v University of N – representing a PhD candidate in a successful claim of disability discrimination against her university, resulting in compensation of around £600,000.
• Political Candidate v Political Party – representing a major political party in a claim of religious discrimination by a parliamentary candidate.
• Paulley & Ors v Ministry of Justice – representing various disabled court users in a reasonable adjustments claim concerning disabled access to the Royal Courts of Justice.
• Critical race theory – advising on whether critical race theory is a philosophical belief.
• Parent v Religious School C – advising on whether dress codes imposed on parents by a religious school are lawful.
• Labour Party – advising the Labour Party on internal disciplinary proceedings, including allegations of antisemitism and sexual harassment.
• R v R – acting for a mother in a family law dispute regarding the application of the Equality Act in family law proceedings.
• Pupil v School B – representing a secondary school pupil in successfully challenging her school’s disciplinary policy as constituting unlawful religious discrimination.
• Other premises claims: representing a disabled social housing tenant who was excluded from the Right to Acquire scheme; and acting for a social housing tenant in a claim of race discrimination and harassment.
• Other transport claims: instructed on a claim of disability discrimination against an airline, testing the scope of the Montreal Convention; acting both for and against bus companies in relation to wheelchair use.
• Other services, goods, facilities and public functions: representing a wheelchair user in relation to shop access in Leighton v Kahraman [2017]; representing claimants in cases concerning access to shops, restaurants, pubs, dance companies, and courtrooms; advising on the DWP’s alleged discriminatory handling of a PIP application made by a blind applicant.

Public Law, Human Rights and Education

Nathan’s public law and human rights practice includes particular experience in judicial review, appeals, and private law claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.

Nathan also practises in Education law, both in public and private law disputes. His private law practice includes Equality Act, contractual, and negligence disputes. Details of his Equality Act experience are also set out in the Discrimination and Employment sections of his profile.

Recent cases include:

• Ferguson & Others v United Kingdom 35043/22 – representing the applicants in an ongoing challenge in the European Court of Human Rights to the revocation of same-sex marriage in Bermuda.
• AD & Others v Georgia [2023] 57864/17 – assisting the applicants in the European Court of Human Rights on the requirements for legal recognition of transgender men’s gender.
• H v United Kingdom [2022] 32185/20 – European Court of Human Rights decision on whether the UK’s statutory scheme for parenthood in the case of assisted reproduction is compliant with Article 8 ECHR in the context of a surrogacy arrangement.
• Various Prisoners v Ministry of Justice – representing various claimants regarding alleged failures of the prison service to provide halal food for Muslim prisoners.
• Liberty’s Covid Bill [2021] – drafting provisions in Liberty’s Coronavirus (Rights and Support) Bill to replace the Coronavirus Act 2020.
• R (Rowley) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2021] 1 WLR 1179 – whether the arrangements for British Sign Language interpretation at press conferences in No 10 Downing Street during the Covid-19 pandemic violated the Equality Act 2010.
• R (FDJ) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] 1 WLR 5265 – whether the prison service’s arrangements for the location of trans female prisoners violates the sex-based rights of non-trans prisoners.
• R (GG) v Academy Trust [2021] – judicial review of an academy trust that refused to reinstate a pupil after an Independent Review Panel made a quashing order (resulting in the pupil being readmitted).
• R (Soni) v Lord Chancellor [2021] – whether the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 in relation to second appeals violate Article 6 ECHR.
• R (Shaw) v Secretary of State for Education [2020] ELR 677 – whether the Government’s modification of the duty to provide for education, health and care assessments and plans during the Covid-19 pandemic was lawful.
• R (GG) v Independent Review Panel [2020] – judicial review of an Independent Review Panel that had upheld a permanent exclusion (resulting in the IRP’s decision being quashed).
• R (H) v Secretary of State for Health [2019] EWHC 2095 (Admin) – claim seeking a declaration of incompatibility pursuant to Articles 8 and 14 ECHR regarding the statutory bar on the genetic father of a child born pursuant to a surrogacy arrangement being named as the father on the child’s birth certificate.
• Grand Chamber advisory opinion [2019] (request P16-2018-001) – the first advisory opinion of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, issued under Protocol 16, concerning surrogacy and the rights engaged under French law.
• Romell v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] EWCA Civ 1629 – habeas corpus appeal.
• Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] PIQE P18 – Court of Appeal case concerning patients’ right to informed consent.
• Michalak v GMC [2017] 1 WLR 4193 (SC) – acting for the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the appropriate choice of forum for claims of discrimination against qualifications bodies.

Appointments

September 2022: appointed Junior Counsel to the Crown (B Panel)

May 2019: appointed to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s panel of counsel (C Panel)

March 2018: appointed Junior Counsel to the Crown (C Panel)

Qualifications

BA Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Oxford

GDL, BPP Law School: Distinction

• • Top in the year in public law and land law.

BPTC, Kaplan Law School: Outstanding

• • Top in the year in civil litigation, criminal litigation and ethics.

Nathan needs to collect and hold your personal information in order to advise and represent you. He will take all steps that are appropriate, proportionate and practicable to protect your personal information. Nathan is determined to do nothing that would infringe your rights or undermine your trust. This Privacy Notice describes the information he collects about you, how it is used and shared, and your rights regarding it. To read his privacy notice in full, please see here.

DIRECTORY RECOMMENDATIONS