Nathan Roberts - Matrix Chambers
×
Nathan Roberts
MEET:

Nathan Roberts

Called: 2014

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

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

Recommended by both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500, Nathan is described as “excellent cross examination” and for being “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 is instructed in employment cases in the Employment Tribunal and the High Court, and on appeal. He has significant experience in restraint of trade 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.

Nathan’s practice includes professional discipline. He has acted in various forums for solicitors, police officers, and doctors in regulatory disputes.

High Court:

  • 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:

  • Broker v Stock brokerage [2021] – representing a stock broker in an ongoing disability discrimination claim.
  • Broadcast journalist v Broadcasting organisation – representing a prominent journalist in an ongoing equal pay and race discrimination claim.
  • Trader v Financial Services Company [2019] – representing the employer in a major whistleblowing claim brought by a senior trader valued at £10m.
  • Investment manager v Aviva Ltd [2019] – 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:

  • 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 organisation.
  • 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:

  • 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.

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 are set out in the Employment, Public, and Education sections.

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; and associations.

Recent cases include:

  • PhD Candidate v University of N – representing a PhD candidate in a 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.
  • 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; 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.

Nathan’s education practice includes judicial review and private law discrimination claims. His recent work includes:

  • 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 reinstated).
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • Pupil v School B – representing a secondary school pupil in successfully challenging her school’s disciplinary policy as constituting unlawful religious discrimination.
  • Parent v School R: advising a parent in a claim against a primary school for victimisation.
  • Private law university claims: Nathan has acted for universities in various contract and discrimination law claims brought by students.

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. Recent cases include:

  • 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 reinstated).
  • 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. Nathan represented the United Kingdom Government.
  • Romell v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] EWCA Civ 1629 – habeas corpus appeal.
  • Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] PIQE P18 (CA) – appeal 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.

Eastham scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn

Droop scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn

Kaplan Law School BPTC prize for highest overall performance in: civil litigation, criminal litigation and ethics

BPP Law School highest GDL performance in: public law and land law

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)

BA Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Oxford

GDL, BPP Law School: Distinction

BPTC, Kaplan Law School: Outstanding

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.

Nathan is regulated by the Bar Standards Board and accepts instructions under Standard Contractual Terms. To find out more information on this and the way we work at Matrix, including our fee transparency statement, please see our see our service standards

DIRECTORY RECOMMENDATIONS

"He’s very client-friendly and produces very persuasive advocacy."

"He’s sharp, responsive, thorough in his preparation and quick on his feet."

Chambers & Partners, 2021

"Nathan is responsive, user-friendly and excellent in cross-examination."

Legal 500, 2021
Matrix Chambers
24 HOUR ASSISTANCE
+44 (0)20 7404 3447
Nathan Roberts
Called: 2014

MAIN AREAS OF PRACTICE

  • Civil Liberties and Human Rights
  • Commercial Public Law
  • Discrimination and Equality
  • Education Law
  • Employment Law
  • Health and Social Care (including welfare benefits)
  • Public Law
  • Sports Law

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, education and professional discipline.

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

Recommended by both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500, Nathan is described as “excellent cross examination” and for being “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.

Employment

Nathan is instructed in employment cases in the Employment Tribunal and the High Court, and on appeal. He has significant experience in restraint of trade 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. Nathan’s practice includes professional discipline. He has acted in various forums for solicitors, police officers, and doctors in regulatory disputes. High Court: 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: Broker v Stock brokerage [2021] – representing a stock broker in an ongoing disability discrimination claim. Broadcast journalist v Broadcasting organisation – representing a prominent journalist in an ongoing equal pay and race discrimination claim. Trader v Financial Services Company [2019] – representing the employer in a major whistleblowing claim brought by a senior trader valued at £10m. Investment manager v Aviva Ltd [2019] – 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: 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 organisation. 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: 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 are set out in the Employment, Public, and Education sections. 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; and associations. Recent cases include: PhD Candidate v University of N – representing a PhD candidate in a 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. 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; 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.

Education

Nathan’s education practice includes judicial review and private law discrimination claims. His recent work includes: 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 reinstated). 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). 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. Pupil v School B – representing a secondary school pupil in successfully challenging her school’s disciplinary policy as constituting unlawful religious discrimination. Parent v School R: advising a parent in a claim against a primary school for victimisation. Private law university claims: Nathan has acted for universities in various contract and discrimination law claims brought by students.

Public Law and Human Rights

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. Recent cases include: 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 reinstated). 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. Nathan represented the United Kingdom Government. Romell v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] EWCA Civ 1629 – habeas corpus appeal. Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] PIQE P18 (CA) – appeal 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.

Awards

Eastham scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn Droop scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn Kaplan Law School BPTC prize for highest overall performance in: civil litigation, criminal litigation and ethics BPP Law School highest GDL performance in: public law and land law

Appointments

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 BPTC, Kaplan Law School: Outstanding
Nathan's Privacy Notice

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

"He’s very client-friendly and produces very persuasive advocacy."

"He’s sharp, responsive, thorough in his preparation and quick on his feet."

Chambers & Partners, 2021

"Nathan is responsive, user-friendly and excellent in cross-examination."

Legal 500, 2021