Daisy is an employment and discrimination specialist who is regularly instructed in complex and high value cases in both the employment tribunal and the civil courts. Daisy works with a wide range of clients including unions and union members, sports clubs, higher education institutions, companies, public bodies, and professionals.
She is regularly instructed in sensitive matters, including by senior executives, and can advise on merits, strategy and negotiations at an early stage, and assist with pre-action and without prejudice correspondence.
Daisy’s knowledge of civil litigation means she is well placed to advise clients on jurisdictional matters, employment disputes, breach of contract claims, and discrimination claims in the civil courts. She is also experienced in advising clients and acting in disputes over international jurisdiction and the territorial scope of legislation.
Appellate work
- Represented Wicked Vision in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in Rice v Wicked Vision, led by Nadia Motraghi KC and Rad Kohanzad. The appeal concerned the scope of dismissal claims brought by employees under ss.103A and 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Court of Appeal held that it was bound by the decision in Timis v Osipov, but had it been free to depart from that decision, it would have done so. The decision of the Supreme Court is awaited.
- Instructed in an appeal to the EAT (led by Jane Russell KC) relating to discrimination on the grounds of gender critical beliefs, listed in late 2026.
- Instructed in an appeal from the County Court to the High Court (led by Hugh Southey KC) relating to s.195 of the Equality Act 2010, on discrimination in sport, listed in late 2026.
- Instructed in an appeal to the EAT (unled) in a whistleblowing case, due to be heard in early 2027.
- Successfully represented a corporate respondent in the EAT (unled). The appeal concerned the distinction between continuing acts and one-off acts with continuing consequences for the purposes of the time limit provisions under the Equality Act 2010.
- Drafted grounds of appeal and a skeleton argument for an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, concerning the exercise of suspension clauses in employment contracts.
- Drafted an application for an extension of time within which to lodge an appeal to the EAT.
- Drafted grounds of appeal in an appeal concerning the test for whether a fair trial is still possible under the tribunal’s strike out rules.
- Successfully resisted an appeal against a Registrar’s Order in the EAT (unled).
Employment Tribunal hearings
- Succeeded in a contested application for anonymity for a claimant in a claim for discrimination based on gender reassignment.
- Successfully represented a claimant doctor in a five-day victimisation hearing. The claimant had raised allegations that the respondent’s pay system may disadvantage overseas-qualified doctors. The respondent argued that it had not terminated the doctor’s locum contract because of the protected act, but because of the manner in which he made the protected act, namely that he had approached pay negotiations inappropriately.
- Successfully represented the respondent in a two-week whistleblowing trial: Cox v Adecco. This was a case in which the claimant had, twice, appealed to the EAT on preliminary matters before the case reached a final hearing in the tribunal.
- Successfully represented a foreign government in a dispute over whether the Employment Tribunal had international jurisdiction under post-Brexit legislation (section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982) to hear a claim brought by a consultant working remotely in London. The Tribunal determined that the claimant did not have an “individual contract of employment” with the respondent and, accordingly, the tribunal did not have international jurisdiction to hear the claim.
- Successfully represented a respondent GP Practice in an eight-day hearing. An ex-Partner of the Practice brought a claim (with a pleaded value of over £150,000) for sex and maternity/pregnancy discrimination and constructive expulsion under ss.44 and 46 Equality Act 2010. The claimant alleged that the partners had unlawfully made significant financial decisions about how to run the practice during Covid without her input, and that this had forced her to resign from the partnership.
- Succeeded in a costs application against a claimant who had been legally represented up until the costs hearing. The respondent was awarded 100% of its claimed costs on the basis that the claimant had unreasonably pursued claims which had no merit.
- Successfully represented the respondent in a five-day religious discrimination hearing. The claimant, a social worker, made allegations that she had been instructed by her employer, a Council, to wear a rainbow-coloured lanyard at work. She claimed she had refused to do so on the basis of her faith.
- Successfully represented the claimant, a minister of religion, in a three-day hearing to establish worker-status, cross examining multiple witnesses with the assistance of a Punjabi translator.
