Jason Galbraith-Marten QC
Year of Silk/Call: 2014/1991
Arbitration & Mediation | Commercial Law | Discrimination & Equality | Employment | Human Rights | Professional Discipline | Public & Administrative Law | Sport & Entertainment
"He has an encyclopedic knowledge of employment law and is very, very experienced." "He's very easy to deal with, really knows the employment status area and is a very strong advocate and strategist." Chambers & Partners 2021
“Excellent to work with as he is down to earth, very knowledgeable, practical, prompt, and gives straightforward advice” Legal 500 2021
"Very knowledgeable, well liked by tribunals and a clear and effective advocate." "Really clever, hard-working and has good judgement." Chambers & Partners 2020
"A skilful and articulate advocate, who is very effective in court." Legal 500 2020
Jason is highly regarded for his sound commercial judgment and clear, pragmatic advice. He always demonstrates a real understanding of, and dedication to, his client's needs.
Jason has appeared in a significant number of the leading employment and equality cases. He works across all sectors but has particular expertise in financial services, the pharmaceutical, healthcare, rail and motor industries.
Jason is also a qualified mediator, using his perceptive analysis and easy-going charm to help parties reach agreement in otherwise intractable disputes.
Listed in the 'Chambers 100' published by Chambers & Partners as one of the top 100 business lawyers in the UK
Employment Junior of the Year 2009
1994 Pegasus Scholar to New Zealand
Middle Temple Astbury Scholar
Legal 500 2021: “Excellent to work with as he is down to earth, very knowledgeable, practical, prompt, and gives straightforward advice.”
Chambers & Partners 2020: "Very knowledgeable, well liked by tribunals and a clear and effective advocate." "Really clever, hard-working and has good judgement."
Legal 500 2020: "A skilful and articulate advocate, who is very effective in court."
Chambers & Partners 2019: "Acts across all aspects of employment law, advising clients from local government, media organisations and the motor industry. He is particularly well regarded for his work on disability discrimination cases, as well as matters concerning TUPE and collective employment law." "Incisive, bright and extremely professional." "He is very experienced and inspires confidence. He is also very good with clients."
Legal 500 2019: "He has the rare combination of a sharp legal mind and a client-friendly approach."
Chambers & Partners 2018: "Approachable, accessible, charming and persuasive with clients, opponents and courts. He is extremely bright and gets to the killer point quickly and without fuss."
Legal 500 2016: "A very strong and skilful court advocate, who is tenacious and smart at the same time."
Chambers & Partners 2015 commends Jason for the excellent judgment he displays and the tireless work he puts in for his clients. "Someone that Judges respect highly." "A real Trojan; who is very good on discrimination and disability cases." "He's very easy to deal with, practical, straightforward and is someone that clients really like."
Legal 500 2015 says "His legal skills are magnificent but, equally importantly, he is so user-friendly and a real delight to work with."
Chambers & Partners 2014: "Universally acclaimed as a star of the Bar", "Intellectually, he's very strong and very astute. He's able to pick out the pressure points in a case very quickly." "He's outstanding, reasonably priced and ... as smooth as any silk out there."
Legal 500 2014: "an absolutely outstanding operator, and technically very gifted."
Chambers & Partners 2013: "an 'outstanding advocate' who sources rate highly for his intellectual abilities."
Chambers & Partners 2012: "a fleet-footed advocate" who "knows his stuff and is tough to the appropriate degree." "Ferociously bright," he is always prepared and wins cases with his imaginative arguments. Charming and engaging with clients, in court “he changes tribunals' minds like no other."
APPOINTMENTS AND MEMBERSHIPS
PUBLICATIONS AND TRAINING
• ‘Whistleblowing in 2018 – Where are we now and where are we going' 22 QC
• ‘Vicarious Liability – the developing legal landscape' for Industrial Law Society 2017
• 'The EU Anti-Discrimination Directives' at the Academy of European Law, Trier, Germany
• 'Legal Effects of a TUPE Transfer' for IRS
• 'A bad year for Christianity: the clash between religious belief and sexual orientation'
• 'The law and practice of Industrial Action' for Solicitors in the Local Government Employment Special Interest Group
• Co-author of Bullen & Leake & Jacob's and of Butterworths Employment Law Guide
• B v Yodel Delivery Network Ltd (C-692/19)  IRLR 550, CJEU, acting for the successful Respondent in a case concerning the employment status of Yodel delivery drivers.
• Varnish v British Cycling Federation  IRLR 822, EAT, acting for the successful Respondent in a case concerning the employment status of an Olympic athlete.
• Turner v DPD Group UK Ltd  Case no. 3325938/17, acting for the successful Respondent in a case concerning the employment status of DPD van drivers.
• Guvera Ltd v Butler  11 WLUK 486, acting for the successful Claimants in a class action concerning the application of TUPE to a share sale.
• Dewhurst v Citysprint UK Ltd  1 WLUK 16, acting for the successful Claimant in a case concerning the employment status of Citysprint cycle couriers.
• University of London v Morrissey  ICR 893;  IRLR 487, EAT , definition of employee representatives under Information and Consultation of Employees Regs 2004.
• Little v Richmond Pharmacology Ltd  ICR 85, EAT, effect of successful internal appeal on claim of indirect sex discrimination.
• East Midlands Trains Ltd v National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers  EWCA Civ 1072,
successful application to injunct strike action on the east coast route between London and the Midlands.
• Various claimants v Glasgow City Council  3 WLUK 527, acting for c. 4000 low paid female employees in an equal pay claim against Glasgow City Council.
• Turner v East Midlands Trains  ICR 525, CA, seminal case considering the interplay between the 'band of reasonable responses' test for unfair dismissal and the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Russo v British Airways  EqLR 987, Indirect race discrimination. A class action brought by employees who lost travel benefits following a period of industrial action.
• R & R Plant (Peterborough) Ltd v Bailey  IRLR 503, in which the Court of Appeal held that Sch.6 para.2(1)(a) of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 required an employer to inform an employee approaching retirement specifically that he had a right to make a request not to retire under para. 5 of Sch 6.
• Cordell v. Foreign & Commonwealth Office  ICR 280, a disability discrimination claim brought by a diplomat refused a posting overseas as Her Majesty's Deputy Head of Mission because of the cost of providing reasonable adjustments.
• O'Reilly v. British Broadcasting Corporation  EqLR 225, an age and sex discrimination complaint brought by a former presenter of 'Countryfile'.
• Buckland v. Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation  ICR 908, CA a case that attracted significant media interest concerning allegations of 'dumbing down' of academic standards and which raised a novel but important point of law on the correct legal test to be applied in constructive dismissal cases.
• Allen v. GMB  IRLR 630 CA and  IRLR 752, EAT, a high-profile, national test case concerning allegations of unlawful sex discrimination against the GMB.
• Brennan v. Sunderland City Council and Others  ICR 955 and  ICR 479, defending further allegations of discrimination by the main trade unions.
• Corrigan v. GMB  ICR 197, EAT, concerning the lawfulness of Paul Kenny's appointment as General Secretary of the union.
• Irving v. GMB  IRLR 202, EAT, concerning the proper construction of the union's rulebook and the interpretation of s.108A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
• Wetherill v. Birmingham City Council  IRLR 781, CA, a national, multi-party test case concerning 'car user allowance' paid to local government employees.
• Bull v. Nottinghamshire & City of Nottingham Fire & Rescue Authority  ICR 1631 CA, a national test case concerning 'co-responding' whereby firefighters were required to answer calls to the ambulance service.
• HM Prison Service v. Johnson  IRLR 951, EAT, a complex disability discrimination appeal.