Jack Mitchell

Jack is the “go to junior” in whistleblowing, being a recognised specialist and co-author of seminal books on the subject. Working in this area since 1993, first at Public Concern at Work (now Protect) where he was part of the team who advised and persuaded MPs to provide protection, through to the introduction of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Jack has advised Governments and contributed to international papers in this area. With this practical and academic insight, he has been involved in many cases for both Claimants and Respondents. His understanding of what is understood to be one of the most complex areas of employment law has resulted in many successful cases for his clients with awards for Claimants ranging up to seven figures. Jack has more recently started to assist with multinational claims, including those under the False Claims Act and SEC protection in the US. Under all the headings below, there is a regular theme in that Jack is instructed in whistleblowing cases.

Interim Remedy

Jack is regularly advising and representing parties regarding interim relief.  For example, in:

Charity

Jack was successful in representing a charity responding to an application for interim relief in August 2025.

Cresswell v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd

Jack represented Mr Cresswell in his whistleblowing claims regarding disclosures he made related to HS2.  Following Rachel Owusu-Agyei’s successful preliminary hearing to establish he was a worker for three separate corporate respondents, a consent order was entered into and Jack continued to represent Mr Cresswell through to his successful remedy hearing in 2025.

Bank

Jack successfully represented a bank in responding to an application for interim relief in March 2025.

University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

In 2023 Jack represented a locum consultant in their whistleblowing claim that the termination of their locum appointment was on the grounds of disclosures related to bullying and patient related issues.

Ryan v SMS Environmental Ltd & Ors ET Case No: 3313472/2020 Jack represented Mr Ryan, securing an Order for interim remedy following a dismissal arising from disclosures relating to Covid-19 and the health and safety of staff.  Conversely in Thornton v Ixico Technologies Ltd and others ET Case Number: 2202651/2020 Jack successfully represented Ixico responding to an application for interim relied.

Tribunal/Appeal work

Led by Simon Gorton KC, Jack joined the legal team in the ground-breaking case of Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti. First before the Court of Appeal, then before the Supreme Court, then back to the ET then up to the EAT, before returning to the Tribunal for remedy. This case is continuing with a remedies hearing taking place in 2022.

In 2023, following a remedies hearing, Jack is now being led by Bruce Carr KC, before the EAT in an ongoing appeal, with leave having been granted by HHJ James Tayler.

Also in 2023, Jack represented Martyn Pitman (a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist) in his claim, with Mark Sutton KC representing the Trust.  The case was closely followed on-line and in the press.

Previously, Jack had been instructed to Appeal the case of Geduld v Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd. Jack was also brought in to lead Alex Line (Outer Temple Chambers) in an Appeal by the Terrance Higgins Trust, however the case settled.

Thain v Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Services

From 2017 to 2019 Jack was instructed by Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Services in a complex claim presented by Mr Thain. The case was subject to various delays but was withdrawn at the Tribunal after Jack cross examined Mr Thain in 2020.

Adams, Adams v De la Rue International Limited Case No: 3202036/2018 & 3202037/2018

The Adams brothers brought a complex whistleblowing claim against De La Rue.  Jack successfully represented De la Rue. The judgment in August 2020 is available here.

Junior Doctor

Representing a junior doctor at first instance in 2017, in a case impacting 54,000 junior doctors and funded by the BMA, Jack ran arguments not previously run in Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (CA), following which the Trust conceded this junior doctor’s status and the whistleblowing part of the case is proceeded to trial. At the substantive hearing, the Hospital agreed to a confidential settlement, with an open statement that the Dr had suffered a detriment having made a protected qualifying disclosure.

Dr Mattu

Jack represented this famous cardiologist in his Tribunal claim against University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. In what is regarded as the longest running Tribunal case, taking over 6 months, involving more than 26 witnesses and 54 lever arch files covering a period of over 13 years and resulting in a judgment of over 400 pages in length. Jack, leading another barrister, was successful in this groundbreaking judgment which resulted in substantial damages being awarded, with Jane McNeil KC taking over the remedy hearings in this case. See the Independent’s article on the case here.

Trader

Jack represented a currency trader who blew the whistle on front running at the bank (whereby traders would obtain information from prospective clients that would affect the market, then trade misusing that information). Jack secured a substantial payment to the Claimant, subject to confidentiality agreements.

An unnamed bank

Jack acted for a trader who provided key information to UK and USA regulators and also then became a key witness for the Department of Justice (US).

A claim for interim damages and unfair dismissal together with responding to an injunctive remedy involving a solicitor who claimed he was instructed not to disclose documentation in High Court litigation.

Spy

A claim from a member of the security services following disclosures of information which placed his and his colleagues at risk when conducting operations overseas.  This case settled.

Jack has obtained without notice and with notice injunctions in many areas, but predominantly in relation to alleged breach of express or implied covenants by senior staff concerning information, data or materials removed or matters of strict confidentiality. Advising in this urgent area, Jack is calm, tactical and astute to the specific requirements and is a valued member of the legal team either presenting or responding to these claims. Whether you are concerned about the diversion of business opportunities, the misuse of business information, team moves, database rights and the misuse of data, Jack is experienced in this areas. Further, he understands the plethora of remedies available beyond the prohibitory, mandatory, springboard or negative injunctions through to restitutionary damages and gain based, exemplary or liquidated damages even down to the benefits arising from an account of profits or equitable damages being awarded. Jack has also been involved in cases where search orders have been obtained.

Sinclair Pharmaceuticals Limited v Burrell and Perry [2025] EWHC 1602 (KB)

Instructed to attend a return date following a without notice injunction obtained by the Claimant, led by Simon Gorton KC, were successful in their application to set aside the application in a complex and interesting claim arising from the disclosure of documents relevant to an ongoing whistleblowing claim in June 2025.  The Claimant is seeking permission to appeal.

S. Metcalf and others v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

Jack leading Serena Crawshay-Williams, represent this group of surgeons in their High Court claim regarding the payment for proscribed time, turning on the interpretation of their contracts.  Jack and Serena have succeeded in an application and on appeal, with the Trust being represented by Gerard McMeel KC, this case is continuing.

British Airways v BALPA

Jack was instructed as junior to Simon Cheetham KC for the High Court application for an injunction brought by BA to prevent a strike. Further information is available here.

TV company. In 2022 Jack advised a television production company about the enforcement of restrictive covenants of staff, together with the drafting of and pleading of various High Court claims/applications. The pre-action work succeeded, with settlement and undertakings agreed.

Team move

Jack was instructed as junior to Simon Gorton KC in a team move claim for the new employer of the team. The claim settled.

Re: A Solicitor

Jack was instructed to represent a solicitor in an arbitration regarding their alleged breach of contractual and other restrictive covenants. Jack successfully represented and negotiated a settlement during the arbitration.

Re: An LLP

Jack advised a major law firm on potential breaches of covenant by an existing and departing partner. Litigation was avoided due to Jack’s advice and undertakings having been obtained.

Jack specialises in employment law and has been attending tribunals since 1993. He advises both corporate and individual clients with some recent clients including Babcock, Eurotunnel, Paul Smith, Royal Mail, Thomson Reuters, The Ritz, Terrence Higgins Trust and the BBC. When representing Claimants he has represented clients with successful claims against companies including: Lloyds Bank, HSBC and HP.  Nominated as Employment Junior of the Year (2014), Jack attracts instructions in high profile claims including people in the media or sporting personalities, whose claims did not reach the public glare of court or a tribunal, including some market sensitive claims. As seen from the Directories and the Testimonials, Jack has received wide ranging praise for his expertise, sound practical advice and astute tactical direction.

University

Jack successfully represented a University in a sensitive claim where a member of staff was dismissed for harassing a student.  The case involved a criminal prosecution and complicated issues of disclosure with the final hearing taking place in July 2025.

Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster [2025] EWCA Civ 1857

Led by Nadia Motraghi KC this appeal considered the parameters of lists of issues adopted in Tribunal hearings. Moustache had brought claims for discrimination arising from her disability and unfair dismissal. The list of issues was agreed between the parties in advance of the final hearing. That list did not include a claim for discriminatory dismissal. The claimant, a litigant in person, appealed to the EAT, arguing that the tribunal should have amended the list of issues at the final hearing to include a claim for discriminatory dismissal. The EAT agreed with her.  Jack led by Nadia successfully appealed for the Trust to the Court of Appeal, where the Court provided guidance on the nature and scope of the ET’s duty to identify and determine issues in proceedings where the parties have agreed a list of issues. See here.

University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

In 2023 Jack represented a locum consultant in their whistleblowing claim that the termination of their locum appointment was on the grounds of disclosures related to bullying and patient related issues.

City of London

In 2023, Jack represented the City of London, in a status case, including wider employment claims and issues.

Hope v BMA [2022] IRLR 206

Representing the BMA at first instance and before the then President of the EAT, this is an important case on an employer’s ability to discipline frivolous, vexatious and repeated grievances. The decision also addresses the difference between gross misconduct and conduct dismissals. An appeal to the Court of Appeal currently remains potentially live. The EAT judgment is available here.

Newby v Newby & Paskins v HMRC ET Case No: 2400627/2020 & others

Instructed in this important age discrimination claim upon which the treatment of past and future civil servants and the compensation to which they have and will be entitled was determined. The Government (not limited to just HMRC) admitted that a scheme it operated to award compensation to civil servants was prima facie discriminatory, this case before the former President of the ET, Brian Doyle, determined whether the Government’s defence of justification could be made out.

British Airways Ltd v British Airline Pilots’ Association [2019] EWHC 2302 (QB)

The High Court has turned down an application by British Airways for an injunction to prevent industrial action by the British Air Lines Pilots Association (BALPA). The case was heard on 23 July by Mrs. Justice Elisabeth Laing and concerned the statutory construction of various sections of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the requirements placed on unions to comply with ballot notices, in particular the interpretation of s.226A. Simon Cheetham KC and Jack Mitchell, instructed by David Hunt of Farrer & Co, represented BALPA, having stepped in for Michael Ford KC and Stuart Brittenden, who had previously been acting for BALPA, but were unavailable for this hearing. The judgment is available here.

A week later, Michael Ford KC, Simon Cheetham KC and Jack Mitchell, instructed by David Hunt and Alice Yandle of Farrer & Co, represented BALPA before the Court of Appeal [2019] EWCA Civ 1663.  They dismissed British Airways’ appeal against the judgment of Mrs Justice Elizabeth Laing.  A case heard one week after the High Court judgment, on 23 July and in a judgment handed down on 31 July, the Court accepted BALPA’s argument that the obligation on a union was to provide information about the general categories of employees, which – by providing pilots’ ranks – they had done in this case. The judgment is available here.

For further news reports on the case, see The BBC, The Guardian or The Telegraph.

Adams, Adams v De la Rue International Limited Case No: 3202036/2018 & 3202037/2018

The Adams brothers brought a complex whistleblowing claim against De La Rue.  Jack successfully represented De la Rue.  The judgment in August 2020 is available here.

Immigration

Jack led Rachel Owusu-Agyei in the EAT. Mr Badara was engaged by Pulse. He was a Nigerian national and husband to an EEA National. He was contractually required to prove his right to work in the UK. He supplied a work visa which expired, and the employer was advised by the Home Office that to continue to employ Mr Badara would be a criminal offence. That advice was acted upon and he was suspended. The advice was wrong in law. The EAT remitted the case. A copy of the judgment is available here.

Teachers: failure to consult

Jack is acting for twelve former staff, instructed by three unions, presenting claims against a former partnership running a school. Jack successfully argued to have each partner personally liable for the protected award and persuaded the Tribunal that the Respondent school had failed to establish a fair dismissal and that each former member of staff was entitled to damages for unfair dismissal.

Re: A member of the House of Lords

Jack represented a member of the House of Lords in successfully defending and avoiding claims, including obtaining restricted reporting orders.

Thomas and Others v Quinn and Liberty

Instructed for 48 of the Claimants in this group litigation, this case addressed numerous issues including status under the WTR, ERA, holiday pay, terms and the conditions of employment. The case was the subject of Presidential Direction Order number 109.

Abuse of a customer, not a fair dismissal

Jack represented the Claimant who was dismissed for allegedly physically and verbally abusing a member of the public. Despite video footage existing, Jack succeeded in obtaining an unfair dismissal judgment against the Claimant’s employer. After succeeding, the employer settled the case before the remedy decision.

Working Time Regulations

Jack represented the Respondent defending a claim of working time regulation breach based on an analysis of over a year’s tracking information, raising issues of what is working time, rest periods and rest breaks including daily rest periods, and weekly rest periods.

An unnamed bank

Jack acted for a trader who provided key information to UK and USA regulators and also then became a key witness for the Department of Justice (US). This case was settled in the UK.

Thurlbeck, Weatherup, Edmunson v Newsgroup Newspapers Limited

Jack was instructed to represent Mr Thurlbeck (former News Editor of News of the World) in his claims against that paper arising from the phone hacking scandal. Jack was successful at PHR before the London Regional Employment Judge.

Jack has successfully represented Claimants and Respondents in this nuanced and highly sensitive area of law. Jack has decades of experience in this area, presenting successful claims ranging from a police officer who was sent an offensive postcard (see the judgment) through to successfully defending two consultants accused of discrimination in the High Court, where they also faced defamation claims (see the judgment).

In addition, Jack has specific knowledge of Equal Pay claims and has been noted by Chambers & Partners previously in this area. This year Jack successfully represented a claim against a Paulo Alto tech firm, that was settled on favourable terms.

Previously Jack has advised and orchestrated a Local Authorities managed approach to mass litigation in this area, through to successfully establishing various material factor defences.

University

In 2024, Jack leading Richard O’Keefe represented various staff bringing claims regarding discriminatory pay practices.  This case is continuing.

Sommer  v Swiss Re Corporate Solutions Services Ltd

In 2023, Jack represented Mrs Sommer in her successful discrimination claim, resulting in a £1.3m damages being awarded (see a news report https://www.ft.com/content/72b77581-efb5-4bb6-a466-aec16af8f1a0 or https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/swiss-re-sex-discrimination-sommer/ ).

Newby v Newby & Paskins v HMRC ET Case No: 2400627/2020 & others

Instructed in this important age discrimination claim upon which the treatment of past and future civil servants and the compensation to which they have and will be entitled was determined. Jack represented six lead claimant civil servants, in a case impacting up to 450k+ civil servants. This case is addressed above.

Humby v Barts Health NHS Trust, ET

Jack successfully represented Barts in a disability discrimination claim, involving direct discrimination, discrimination arising and reasonable adjustments. A copy of the judgment is available here.

Mr Humby brought a subsequent claim, which involved interim hearings and a final hearing. The final hearing judgment in 2021 is available here.

Mrs Ali v New College Manchester, EAT

In December 2015, Jack represented New College in Manchester Tribunal, successfully defending claims of disability discrimination, dismissal because of whistleblowing and the failure to make reasonable adjustments. In 2016, Mrs Ali presented an Appeal to the EAT where again Jack successfully defended the Respondent before the EAT. A copy of the judgment is available here.

London Borough of Hillingdon v Meso, EAT

Jack represented Mrs Meso in a complex and unusual appeal over a claim of race of discrimination. Before the President of the EAT, Jack successfully argued the application of “fresh evidence” under rule 34(3)(d) and rule 34(3)(c) (“interest of justice”) and prevented the discrimination decision from being overturned. A copy of the judgment is available here.

Babcock, ET

Jack represented this Respondent, defending an unmeritorious claim for over £400,000 for race discrimination and disability discrimination.

Disability discrimination

Jack has advised on numerous disability discrimination cases, including Dr Mattu whose claim succeeded on many grounds including the Trust’s failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Solicitor

Jack was involved in a case where a solicitor was dismissed on the grounds of his disability.

More recently, Jack successfully established a Claimant was not disabled at a PHR, following the cross examination of the Claimant adducing evidence which substantially undermined the medical evidence.

Representative work includes:

Football

Jack has advised on the construction of football contracts, including: the rights of termination; the contractual implications following a player’s prison sentence and frustration.

In 2022 Jack was instructed to and represented a cricket club, within its confidential internal disciplinary procedures, to address the misconduct of members.

In 2021 Jack investigated allegations of age discrimination, bullying and harassment made against the CEO of the Jockey Club.

At the very end of 2018 and into 2019, Jack undertook a 6-month investigation into bullying allegations made against a coach at Aston Villa. Jack was instructed by David Smellie of Farrer & Co. The investigation was made public. For newspaper reports on the matter see:  The Guardian, The Independent, ITV, The Sun or Sky Sports.

In 2018 Jack was the most senior barrister appointed to a team selected to interview staff and players within a premier league team for an internal investigation. The investigation was conducted over a 72-hour period resulting in the dismissal of a senior member of staff.

Rugby

Jack is an RFU qualified referee and has coached mini rugby for over 10 years.  Jack has advised an international coach/manager on their rights upon discrimination, termination of contract through to representation in successful mediation.

Gymnastics

Jack was recently selected and approved to sit as an Appellate judge in a high profile BGA appeal, against a sanction imposed on a gymnast.

Jack has written articles in relation to the protections in Sport for whistleblowers with a national and international perspective. 

“Is Whistleblowing in Sport fit for purpose? Part 1” (available here) and “Part 2”, (available here) and “Whistleblowing in Sport”, World Sport Advocate, 13^th April 2017.

Jack has represented many medical practitioners in Tribunal or in the Courts, be they Claimants, Trusts or individual Respondents to claims. Knowledgeable about the professional and regulatory arena in which all professionals must work, Jack has represented professionals before their professional body or where those same standards are applied both internally or before a Court or Tribunal.

Jack’s intimate knowledge of claims in the NHS is demonstrated by the fact that from a Telegraph’s article on whistleblowing in the NHS (available here), Jack represented Dr Dare, Dr Mattu and Mrs Blackburn in her preliminary hearing and before the EAT, where he was led by John Bowers KC.

The following are some of Jack’s other recent cases:

Jack currently instructed in cases for members of the BMA and for various NHS Trusts.

Dr MN v NHS Foundation Trust L [2025] EWHC 2023

Lead by Simon Gorton KC, Jack and Simon represented the Trust in a claim for injunctive relief concerning terms within an internal policy, whether it was incorporated into the employment contract, raising issues of express and implied terms.

S. Metcalf and others v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

Leading Serena Crawshay-Williams, representing a group of surgeons in their claim regarding the payment for proscribed time, turning on the interpretation of their contracts.  Jack and Serena have succeeded in an application and on appeal, with the Trust being represented by Gerard McMeel KC, this case is continuing.

Sangani and others v Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

In 2022-23 Jack has represented a group of orthopaedic consultants in their claims against their trust. The trust conceded their claims following Jack’s cross examination.  Oliver Isaacs representing the Claimant’s in their later remedy hearing.

University Hospital, London

Jack was instructed in early 2020 to cover days 13, 14 and 15 of a three-week trial when Counsel with conduct for that trial became unavailable. Instructed 3 working days before the final days of the trial, when the Tribunal refused to adjourn the conclusion of evidence for the hearing.

Humby v Barts Health NHS Trust

Jack successfully represented Barts in a disability discrimination claim, involving direct discrimination, discrimination arising and reasonable adjustments. A copy of the judgment is available here.

Junior Doctor

Representing a junior doctor at first instance in 2017, in a case impacting 54,000 junior doctors and funded by the BMA. Jack ran arguments not previously run in Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (CA). The Trust conceded this junior doctor’s status and subsequently on the first day of the hearing admitted he made protected disclosures and had suffered detriment on the ground of his disclosures.

Dr Mattu

Jack represented this famous cardiologist in his Tribunal claim against University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. In what is regarded as the longest running employment tribunal case, it took place over 6 months, involving more than 26 witnesses and 54 lever arch files covering a period of over 13 years and resulting in a judgment of over 400 pages in length. Jack, leading another barrister, was successful in this groundbreaking judgment which resulted in substantial damages being awarded, with Jane McNeil KC taking over the remedy hearings in this case. See The Independent’s coverage of the case here.

Dr Dare v West London Mental Health NHS Trust

Jack was instructed to Appeal to the EAT and secured a favourable settlement for whistleblower Dr Dare, the former Clinical Lead of Women’s Unit Broadmoor. The issues have been widely reported in the press, following the removal of the Chair and Chief Executive and a CKC inspection recording substantial issues.

For more information on Dr Dare, please see this article.

Senasinghe v East Kent NHS Hospitals University Trust

Jack was instructed by the Claimant in his complex discrimination claim including whistleblowing and unfair dismissal. Jack was specifically thanked by the Judge during this trial for his conduct when handling various novel matters that arose.

Nurse

Jack represented a mental health nurse who was accused of failing to keep accurate notes.

The Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v. Liakopoulou

The Claimant was an NHS whistleblower who succeeded only in her claim for unfair dismissal. Jack was instructed at the Claimant’s Appeal, despite not representing the Claimant during the Tribunal Hearing. The judgment is available here.

Representative work includes:

In 2023 Jack investigated allegations following Baroness Kennedy KC’s report for the TSSA (Transport Salaried Staff Association), a complex and lengthy process taking place between February and August.

In 2022, Jack undertook an investigation for an NGO established by Royal charter. The investigation was prepared in advance of an ET hearing.

In 2021, Jack undertook an investigation for a large US company, examining the conduct of their UK based CEO.

In 2020, Jack undertook an investigation on behalf of the Jockey Club.

In 2020, Jack has been undertaking an investigation for a City company into grievances and purported whistleblowing matters. Jack also undertook an investigation into a matter for a school.

At the end of 2018 and into 2019 Jack undertook an investigation into historical allegations of bullying at Aston Villa Football Club.

In 2018, Jack was the most senior barrister in a team appointed to investigate allegations in a premier league club, interviewing first team players, coaches and staff.

In 2017, Jack undertook an investigation into discrimination for a Mayfair firm.

Jack undertakes common law claims in the County or High Court, particularly where they involve the actions of senior Directors or the conduct of regulated professions.  Some examples of Jack’s work in this area include:

Sinclair Pharmaceuticals Limited v Burrell and Perry [2025] EWHC 1602 (KB)

Instructed to attend a return date following a without notice injunction obtained by the Claimant, led by Simon Gorton KC the Defendants were successful in their application to set aside the Claimant’s application in a complex and interesting claim arising from the disclosure of documents relevant to an ongoing whistleblowing claim in June 2025.  The Claimant is seeking permission to appeal and the substantive case both in the High Court and before the ET continue.

Tracing, company property

A High Court claim was presented by the former employer of Z. It claimed company funds acquired in the Peoples Republic of China, paid through a Hong Kong account into the UK, were not paid to the company but used by Z for himself and his wife.  Jack represented the Defendants Z and his wife in their application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process.

Re: A Solicitor

Jack was instructed to represent a solicitor in an arbitration regarding their alleged breach of contractual and other restrictive covenants. Jack successfully represented and negotiated a settlement during the arbitration.

Jack has many years’ experience in managing TUPE claims with recent work exploring the interesting question as to whether there was a transfer when the facts of the case throw up the issue as to whether there is a “significant difference” between the pre and post transfer service. A copy of the judgment is available here.

Agbenowossi-Kofi v Donvand Limited (t/a Gullivers Travel Associates) [2014] EWCA Civ 855

In June 2014, leading Harriet Fear Davies, Jack succeeded in the Court of Appeal before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Sullivan and Lady Justice Sharp. The case is an important practical application of the Henderson v Henderson abuse of process principle, and what is required for a finding of unjust harassment. Jack represented the Respondent both before the ET and then the EAT. He initially succeeded by striking out the Claimant’s first claim for being out of time before the then Regional Employment Judge. When the Claimant issued a second claim, which repeated the allegations from the first claim together with new allegations, he made a successful application to strike out this second claim relying on the above principles.  Having successfully responded to an Appeal to the EAT, Jack appeared before the Court of Appeal with his junior and succeeded in establishing that the Tribunal Judge applied the above principles correctly. A copy of the judgment is available here.

• Court of Appeal provides important guidance as to the proper interpretation of internal disciplinary policies
• High Court hands down judgment in the case of Sinclair Pharmaceuticals Limited v Burrell and Perry
• Eight members of Old Square feature in the Pro Bono Recognition List of England & Wales
• Court of Appeal provides guidance on the list of issues: Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
• Simon Gorton KC successfully appears for the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police in a whistleblowing claim