Skip to content

Tom Gillie

Year of Call: 2013


Clinical Negligence | Commercial Law | Discrimination & Equality | Employment | Personal Injury | Professional Discipline | Public & Administrative Law | Sport & Entertainment


Tom Gillie specialises in equality, employment, regulatory and clinical negligence law, combining expert knowledge with highly skilled advocacy in court.

Tom is a specialist in discrimination and labour law. His representation and advice is sought by high-profile organisations in complex equality law matters. He appears un-lead in appellate courts as well as the employment tribunal, civil courts and regulatory tribunals. Recently, Tom has been instructed by The Labour Party to provide advice on antisemitism investigations and race discrimination; and has been appointed by the Muslim Council of Great Britain to advise it on the widely publicised All Party Parliamentary Group's definition of Islamophobia. He represents victims of domestic slavery and human trafficking in the High Court and advises corporations on their duties under the Modern Slavery Act. He has previously advised the Government Equalities Office about guidance on non-discriminatory dress-codes and the Equality Act 2010 for employers; and is a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission's panel of junior counsel.

Tom's practice comprises multiday trials and advisory work in complex employment and discrimination claims, including modern slavery litigation. Tom is currently representing a vulnerable victim of domestic slavery and human trafficking in the High Court. He has extensive advocacy experience in the Employment Tribunal and the EAT, having represented and advised clients in the following sectors:

• Trade Unions and political parties
• Local government
• Health
• The armed forces
• Policing
• Housing
• Retail and energy
• Charities
• Education
• Logistics


Tom acts in regulatory cases, specialising in investigations and representation in the health, education and armed forces sectors. Recently, he represented members of the army and RAF before the Service Complaint Appeal Panel and the Employment Tribunal; acted in cases concerning regulated health professionals and advised teachers subject to misconduct complaints. Tom also advises the Labour Party's National Executive Committee on the prosecution of sensitive complaints of alleged antisemitism and sexual harassment, including those before the Party's National Constitutional Committee and those against MPs.

Due to his expertise, Tom also advises national organisations on policy work. He has co-ordinated policy round-tables at the Law Society and the House of Commons and has advised the Equality and Diversity Forum and the Government Equalities Office on proposed government guidance about dress codes at work for employers.


Tom has particular interest in the housing sector having advised on discrimination issues in the employment field as well as claims in the County Court. He has extensive knowledge of the housing sector having previously worked both for a large housing association and in a law centre homelessness team. In addition to representing housing providers and their employees in employment law disputes, Tom also acts for tenants in discrimination cases against landlords in the county court. Tom is extensively involved in housing policy matters; he has addressed a round table in Parliament on tenants' rights and housing in the UK; and is working with policy partners including the IPPR, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the National Housing Federation and trades unions. He is the Chair of Home: The Tenants Foundation and The Tenants Foundation Policy Network.


Tom also advises on sexual orientation and sex discrimination claims. In 2017, he advised one of the world's best known department stores about sex discrimination in a goods and services context, and obtained a generous settlement for a vulnerable claimant in a sexual orientation discrimination case.

Tom has advised clients on claims for Judicial Review and has assisted clients in applications for emergency injunctions in the High Court, including on behalf of a vulnerable refugee.

Tom recently represented a GCSE pupil in an appeal against permanent exclusion, securing the pupil's re-admittance to the school and a complete overhaul of the school's disciplinary policy. Tom is also familiar with drafting grounds of Judicial Review for school exclusion cases.

Tom acts for claimants in clinical negligence cases, including 'never event' cases. Tom's recent clinical negligence advisory work includes advising claimants in cases involving:

• necrotising fasciitis;
• wrong site surgery and negligent anaesthesia;
• negligent heart surgery.
Tom has extensive experience of drafting Schedules of Loss and Particulars of Claim in complex and high value PI cases. Tom also has experience representing clients in costs applications and RTA hearings in the County Court.


Inner Temple Major Exhibition Award

Churchill College Cambridge Scholarship Award


Industrial Law Society



Franco-British Lawyers Society

HOME: The Tenants Foundation (Chair)

Bar Human Rights Committee


Bar On Straight Civil Partnerships is Lawful

Settling Injury to Feelings: A Taxing Time

Race Discrimination and Housing in Post Brexit Britain

Housing, Race and the Right to Rent post Brexit

Can Judicial Assessment help Claimants and Respondents in the Employment Tribunal?

Bakers lose ‘Gay Cake' case

'2017: the year of the discount rate: a claimant's perspective' (co-author with Martyn McLeish), Journal of Personal Injury Law, (2017) No.2 Pages 109-117

A guide to using statistics in equality and employment litigation


BA First Class with mark of Special Excellence in Modern Languages, University of Cambridge


Tom speaks fluent French and Italian


Gillett v Bridge 86 Limited, EAT, UKEAT0051/17/DM

In-time amendment applications should not usually be refused where the merits of the proposed amendment cannot be said to have “no reasonable prospects of success”. The fact that the merits of a proposed claim are merely ‘weak' should not be taken into account when deciding whether to grant an in-time application to amend. The fact that an amendment application is in time may not always be decisive, but “it must be a factor carrying considerable weight”; a claimant should not be placed in a worse position by making a timely application to amend than if he/she had taken the alternative course of issuing a fresh claim.