Year of Call: 2012
Clinical Negligence | Discrimination & Equality | Employment | Personal Injury | Professional Discipline
Tamar Burton frequently appears in the Employment Tribunal and County Courts. She has appeared in the High Court, EAT, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and Court of Justice of the European Union. She accepts instructions in clinical negligence, personal injury, regulatory, employment and discrimination law.
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE, PERSONAL INJURY & INQUESTS
Tamar exclusively acts for claimants in her clinical negligence and personal injury work. Tamar has experience of multi and fast-track trials, cost-budgeting, directions and approval hearings. In her growing clinical negligence practice, she is regularly instructed in claims against GPs, dentists, NHS trusts and private hospitals. She advises in conference with medical experts in addition to drafting pleadings and schedules of loss.
Tamar has been appointed as junior counsel to the Infected Blood Inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff.
She is currently being led by William Latimer-Sayer QC in more than 60 claims for individuals with narcolepsy and cataplexy.
She also appears in coronial courts and has been instructed in an inquest touching the death of a pedestrian killed by a HGV lorry in central London and an inquest touching the death of a patient who was undergoing neuro-rehabilitation following a stroke. She was instructed for the family in a four-day inquest, concerning the suicide of a teenager under NHS mental health services, securing a narrative conclusion and a Prevention of Future Death report. Tamar was recently instructed on behalf of the family of a man who died from sepsis in a private hospital following routine bowel surgery. The Coroner ordered a Prevention of Future Death Report concerning post-surgical nursing care.
She has also appeared in the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Tribunal.
EMPLOYMENT & DISCRIMINATION
In her employment and discrimination work, Tamar has experience of multi-day discrimination claims and claims for dismissal, TUPE, redundancy, whistleblowing and contract claims. She also acts in goods and services claims in the civil courts.
Tamar has an interest in litigation concerning the gig economy and worker status. She was successful in representing a cycle courier, instructed on behalf of the Independent Workers of Great Britain trade union, against Addison Lee. She appeared unled. The result was widely reported, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/02/addison-lee-suffers-latest-defeat-in-legal-row-over-gig-economy-rights. She successfully resisted the Respondent's appeal in the EAT ( ICR 1826), led by Peter Oldham QC. The Respondent's permission to appeal was recently rejected by the Court of Appeal.
She was led by Chris Milsom in the EAT in Chandhok v Tirkey  IRLR 195, which was the first case to consider whether caste-based discrimination falls within s. 9 of the Equality Act 2010.
During and after her pupillage, Tamar has been involved with claims brought by judicial and non-judicial office holders for pensions under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 arising from the Supreme Court's decision in O'Brien v Ministry of Justice  I.C.R. 499. She was instructed in the EAT in an appeal concerning non-judicial office holders and in the assessment of remedy in O'Brien v MOJ, led by Rachel Crasnow QC on each occasion. She is currently instructed by a number of fee-paid judges in pursuing claims arising from the O'Brien litigation.
Tamar was instructed in the Supreme Court as a junior to Robin Allen QC and Rachel Crasnow QC in Miller and O'Brien v MOJ  UKSC 46. Tamar was instructed in the preliminary ruling in this case and appeared in the CJEU in June 2018 The case returns to the Supreme Court in July 2019.
During pupillage, her supervisors were Rachel Crasnow QC, William Latimer-Sayer QC, Tom Brown and Lisa Sullivan. During her first six, she assisted William Latimer-Sayer QC in Coakley v Rosey  EWHC 1790 (QB) a 16-day clinical negligence trial and during her second six, she appeared in the Court of Appeal with Tom Brown in a case concerning the burden of proof in a race discrimination claim.
Prior to commencing pupillage, Tamar was a litigation executive at Slater & Gordon. She had responsibility for multiple product liability claims arising from the DePuy ASR hip implant and assisted on clinical negligence claims against the breast surgeon Ian Paterson. She was heavily involved in representing those sexually assaulted by Jimmy Savile and attended the Dame Janet Smith inquiry with clients. Tamar previously worked as an intern at Hackney Community Law Centre specialising in housing, social security and employment law.
She is a volunteer for FRU and the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
Diplock Scholarship, Middle Temple for the BPTC
Slate Award for outstanding work on the Jimmy Savile case
APPOINTMENTS AND MEMBERSHIPS
Junior Counsel to Infected Blood Inquiry
Employment Lawyers Association
Industrial Law Society
Personal Injury Bar Association
PUBLICATIONS AND TRAINING
She regularly gives talks to solicitors on discrimination law.
MA in the History of International Relations, London School of Economics (Distinction)
GDL and BPTC, City Law School
CJEU considered the future effects principle and its application to the question of when time starts to run in pension claims. Led by Robin Allen QC and Rachel Crasnow QC
• Addison Lee v Gascoigne  ICR 1826
EAT dismissed the Respondent's appeal in gig economy case. Led by Peter Oldham QC.
• Gascoigne v Addison Lee (2200436/2016).
A claim on behalf of a gig economy cycle courier. She appeared unled.
• Miller and O'Brien v MOJ  UKSC 46.
The Supreme Court considered the EU-derived Future Effects Principle and made a preliminary reference to the CJEU. Junior to Robin Allen QC and Rachel Crasnow QC.
• Chandhok v Tirkey  IRLR 195
The first case in the EAT to consider whether caste-based discrimination falls within the confines of s.9 Equality Act 2010. Junior to Chris Milsom.
• Moultrie v Ministry of Justice  IRLR 264
An EAT appeal concerning the pension entitlement of medical members in the First-Tier Tribunal and the meaning of the "same or broadly similar" test under the PTWR. Junior to Rachel Crasnow QC.
• Charles v Tesco (UKEAT/0074/15/MC)
An EAT appeal concerning the finding of contributory conduct. She appeared unled.