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”.

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.

Supreme Court:

• Harpur Trust v Brazel [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.

Court of Appeal:

• Robertson v Google LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1262 – whether a defendant needs to enter an acknowledgement of service to challenge jurisdiction in the context of a discrimination claim.
• Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council [2025] EWCA Civ 379 – whether Article 14 ECHR requires job applicants to be provided whistleblowing protections (acting for the intervener, Protect).
• 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.

Employment Appeal Tribunal:

• Maltby v Chestnut Inns Ltd [2025] EAT 130 – the duties on tribunals to make enquiries of claimants on the nature of their claims.
• British Airways Plc v Rollett, Minister for Women and Equalities intervening  [2025] ICR 242 – the leading case on s.19A Equality Act 2010 before Eady P, acting as sole counsel for the Minister for Women and Equalities defending the vires of s.19A.
• Hassan v BBC [2023] EAT 48 – the circumstances in which a tribunal is bound when compiling a list of issues.
• Glover v Lacoste UK Ltd [2023] ICR 1243 – when a provision, criterion or practice is applied and issues of establishing group disadvantage in indirect discrimination claims.
• 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.

High Court:

• Trade Union v Healthcare Company [2025] – acting for a healthcare company in restraining alleged breaches of picketing laws.
• S v Pharmaceutical Company [2025] – acting for the defendant employee in relation to alleged breaches of non-competition restrictions.
• N v Financial Services Company [2024] – acting for a company in restricting a senior employee’s post-termination activities.
• McGuire v Jefferies International Limited [2023] – acting for a financial services company successfully recovering a high-value bonus that was subject to claw-back provisions.
• 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.
• 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:

• Global head of division v Investment bank [2024] – acting for an investment bank in a sensitive whistleblowing claim arising out of an international regulatory investigation.
• Pile-Gray v Ministry of Defence; Knight v Ministry of Defence [2024] – acting for former soldiers in high-profile claims of race and sex discrimination, resulting respectively in success in all the claims, and an apology for racist and sexist harassment.
• 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.
• Mismaque v Sunrise Brokers LLP [2021] – representing a stock broker in a successful high-value (pleaded at £2.5 million) disability discrimination claim.
• 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.

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 opinions to public bodies, political parties, charities, campaign groups, healthcare bodies, and schools on issues relating to trans rights, including on: parliamentary representation, police searches; devolution and competence; EU law; data collection; children’s rights; and single-sex spaces. He has advised and represented trans people in gender reassignment discrimination claims, gender critical people in philosophical belief discrimination claims, and organisations defending such claims.
• Bird v Liberal Democrats – acting for the Liberal Democrats at the remedy stage of a gender critical philosophical belief claim.
• Stewart-Taylor & Ors v Cabinet Office – representing the Cabinet Office in a group claim (275 claimants) concerning the provision of BSL interpretation in the first weeks of the Covid pandemic.
• Philosophical belief cases – acting for international social media platforms in philosophical belief claims brought against them.
• Wimbledon ban – advising on the lawfulness of Wimbledon’s ban on Russian and Belarusian 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Other premises claims: advising a national campaign group on the closure of railway ticket offices; 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 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.
• Challenges to conditions at Manston – an ongoing group claim representing asylum seekers in challenging the fact and conditions of their detention at Manston.
• R (Good Law Project & Ors) v Commission for Equality and Human Rights [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin) – representing the Minister for Women and Equalities in a challenge to guidance produced by the EHRC on use of toilet facilities.
• W v Gender Recognition Panel [2025] EWHC 2685 (Fam) – Advocate to the Court in an appeal of a refusal of a gender recognition certificate on the grounds that the applicant wanted to become pregnant.
• Various v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] – representing claimants in numerous judicial reviews challenging the Home Secretary’s provision of asylum support in relation to disabled asylum seekers.
• 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.
• Awale & Ors v Ministry of Justice [2024] – representing various claimants regarding alleged failures of the prison service to provide halal food for Muslim prisoners.
• Christian Concern v Fitzwilliam College [2023] – representing a Cambridge college in a religious belief case brought by a religious organisation.
• Gajjar v University of Brighton [2023] – successful judicial review of a university’s decision to expel a student.
• 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.
• 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 (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 2026: appointed Junior Counsel to the Crown (A Panel)

January 2024: appointed to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s panel of counsel (B Panel)

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