Emma has a busy trial, appellate, drafting and advisory practice, spanning the full range of statutory and commercial employment and discrimination law matters, from whistleblowing, equal pay and employment status claims through to restrictive covenant and contractual disputes. She acts in multi-day and multi-week Employment Tribunal trials, appeals in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and civil court hearings. Emma is instructed by individuals, trade unions and a range of employers, including global companies, public sector organisations, charities and financial institutions.

Recent appellate cases include:

• Kristensen v Portman Healthcare Ltd / EA-2024-001579-NT (led by Rad Kohanzad, Old Square Chambers) – 2-day, Category A appeal before Lord Fairley P, regarding claims of whistleblowing detriment and dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The EAT considered the construction of s.98(1) and s.98(4) ERA and whether suspension and disciplinary investigation are acts “extending over a period” for the purposes of time limits (judgment reserved).

• Wirral University Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Ms Moriarty [2026] EAT 48 (sole counsel) – successfully represented the Respondent (the Claimant in the ET) in this appeal against a decision that the Claimant’s claim was not a Henderson v Henderson abuse of process. The EAT confirmed that, as part of the "broad merits-based judgment" required when determining whether there has been an abuse of process, an ET may consider the fact that the issues in question have not been litigated before and there will need to be a trial of issues which go to the same cause of action in any event (§32-33).

• Mr A Whitaker v 1. White Rose Academies Trust 2. Luminate Education Group [2026] EAT 43 (sole counsel) – represented the Claimant/Appellant in his EAT appeal against a decision that he was not a worker of the second respondent. HHJ Auerbach considered: 1) worker status under s.43K(1)(a) ERA (Sharpe, McTigue, Day, Highways); (2) the level of assistance that a tribunal should provide to litigants in person (Moustache); (3) the approach to determining whether a tribunal ought to consider a principle or provision as a "matter of course” (Langston; Small); (4) circumstances in which the EAT may exercise its discretion to allow a new point of law to be argued before it (Rance).

• Mr G Allison v Apleona UK Ltd / EA-2025-000069-OO (sole counsel) – successfully represented the Claimant/Appellant in his EAT appeal against a decision that his whistleblowing detriment claim was time-barred. Lord Fairley P held that granting an amendment application cannot rewrite the pleadings. The tribunal can and should have treated the allegation as part of the original pleadings and therefore in time. The EAT substituted their decision for that of the ET.

• Mrs Adele Perkins v Marston (Holdings) Ltd [2025] EAT 170; [2026] IRLR 182 (sole counsel against a led team) – successfully represented the Claimant/Appellant in a 2-day appeal and cross appeal. The issue of whether two of the Respondent's three material factors were potentially indirectly discriminatory has been remitted to a fresh tribunal, alongside justification. The EAT clarified the correct approach to the material factor defence under s.69 of the Equality Act 2010, with a particular focus on establishing potential indirect discrimination under s.69(2).

• Mr Naveed Bari v London Boroughs of Richmond and Wandsworth [2025] EAT 54‍ (sole counsel) – successfully represented the Claimant/Appellant in his EAT appeal against a case management decision. Allowing all grounds of appeal, HHJ Auerbach gave helpful guidance on applications for specific disclosure and requests for information and the conceptual differences between the two (§33-47).

• Mr Charlie Forrest v Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL UK Branch [2025] EAT 81; [2025] IRLR 656 (led by Olivia-Faith Dobbie) – successfully represented the Claimant/Appellant (assistance with drafting skeleton only) in his appeal against strike out of his claims. Authority that it is an error of law not to consider whether a fair trial is possible when deciding whether to strike out a claim for non-compliance with a case management order §36; further, strike out in such circumstances will rarely be appropriate without “at least trying the effect of an unless order” (§34 / §42). Press coverage: Employment Law UK

• Dr Nigel MacLennan v The British Psychological Society (Protect and The Charity Commission intervening) [2024] EAT 166; [2025] IRLR 4 (led by Chris Milsom) – successfully represented the Claimant/Appellant in a landmark appeal, opening the door for whistleblowing protection for charity trustees. HHJ Tayler: (i) clarified the correct approach to determining breaches of Articles 14 / 10 ECHR (§55-60 / §103-105) and (ii) established that whistleblowing protection may flow from “pre-work” disclosures, where the requisite employment status has been achieved by the time of detriment (§29-33 / §111). Press coverage: The Times, The Third Sector, Psychreg, Civil Society, UK fundraising, Law 360.

• Mr M Birkett v Integral UK Ltd [2024] EAT 107 (sole counsel) – successfully represented the Claimant/Appellant in his appeal against findings that his dismissal for redundancy was fair. The EAT found that the ET had erred in law by making inadequate factual findings and giving inadequate reasons as to whether reasonable steps were taken to find the Claimant alternative employment and ensure that the recruitment process was fair for the post for which he interviewed.‍ ‍

Examples of other work in this area include:

Employment Tribunals

• Mr Y H Denli v Jaguar Land Rover Limited: 6015547/2024 (sole counsel) – represented the Claimant in a 10-day final hearing of a whistleblowing detriment claim, as reported in the Financial Times and The Times (judgment reserved).

• Ms Z Gazerani v Paypoint Network Limited: 3311915/2023 – successfully represented the Respondent in a 7-day final hearing of claims of race discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal.

• Co-drafted the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument for an appeal to the Court of Appeal concerning s.43K(1)(a) ERA employment status, led by Chris Milsom.

• Represented the Claimant in an interim relief hearing for a claim of automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing.

• Mrs J Rajesh v Tesco Stores Ltd: 6002500/2024 – successfully represented the Respondent in a multi-day final hearing of claims of victimisation and unfair dismissal.

• E Riley v St Pancras Hotel Services Ltd: 6005372/2024 – successfully represented the Respondent in a multi-day final hearing of claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal.

• Represented the Claimant in a remitted 4-day hearing (MacLennan v BPS) on employment status and the application of Article 14 ECHR, led by Chris Milsom.

• Advised on employment status for a group claim, under s.230(3)(b) ERA, s.43K ERA, s.83 / s.41 EqA, the Agency Worker Regulations 2010, and the Part-time Worker Regulations 2000.

• Successfully negotiated settlement, whether directly or via judicial mediation, including for:

  • a 7-figure sum and favourable terms for the Claimant in a complex claim with a protracted litigation history;

  • a high 5-figure sum for the Claimant in complex claims of whistleblowing unfair dismissal, detriment (including the “detriment-of-dismissal”) and ordinary unfair dismissal, against multiple respondents;

  • favourable terms for a Claimant carer, including important non-financial terms and a favourable position regarding confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses.

Civil courts / commercial

• Drafted pre-action correspondence for claims of breaches of restrictive covenants (non-compete, non-team move, non-employ and non-solicit clauses), breach of contract, and goods and services’ discrimination and harassment.

• Advised on merits and/or quantum for claims of conversion, action for money had and received, action for debt, action for knowing receipt, constructive trust (transfer of property) and restitution for unjust enrichment.

• Drafted contractual terms regarding parental leave for a collective labour agreement between a global company and a major union.

• Represented the Defendant at a Costs and Cast Management Conference for an equal pay claim brought in the county court.

• Successfully negotiated settlement on favourable terms for the Defendant in a goods and services’ discrimination claim and the Claimant in a breach of contract claim.