Daniel specialises in all aspects of employment law. He has for many years been recognised as a leading junior by Chambers & Partners and Legal 500, in which he has been described as a "clever all- rounder" who is "very good on his feet" and "a bit of a bruiser".
Daniel appears regularly in the High Court in employee competition litigation (particularly involving injunctive relief); in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal (often in cases in which he did not appear at first instance); and in complex or high value employment tribunal litigation. He is regularly instructed to appear in cases against silks.
Recent Legal Directory comments include the following:
"He came up with the most imaginative and fabulous argument in a recent discrimination claim." Chambers & Partners 2014
"He's a thorough and incisive advocate." Chambers & Partners 2014
"Impresses sources with his responsiveness and his thorough approach.” Chambers & Partners 2013
"Combines excellent strategic thinking with skilled advocacy.” Legal 500, 2012
"Highly rated by market sources" who say he is "an excellent negotiator who is great on the detail.” Chambers & Partners 2012
"A good team player who is extremely personable and easy to get on with." Chambers & Partners 2012
"Continues to impress... gains the respect of his peers for his "precise, astute and to-the-point observations.” Chambers & Partners 2011
Clients "appreciate his creative streak and his calm, sensitive and down to earth approach." Chambers & Partners 2011
"Has the ability to make extremely complicated and technical legal points seem extremely accessible to the client.” Chambers & Partners 2010
Daniel was called to the Bar in 1994, having graduated from Oxford University with First Class Honours in Politics Philosophy and Economics.
According to the 2014 edition of Chambers and Partners he is "recognised for his strength at appellate level”. Daniel is frequently instructed to appear in the EAT and has also appeared in the Court of Appeal on a number of occasions and he has a notable record of success in both courts. His reported cases include:
Dhunna v CreditSights Ltd  ICR 909 EAT. Whether a tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a claim for unfair dismissal brought by an employee based in Dubai. The EAT’s decision is currently listed to be heard in an appeal by the CA in December 2013.
Tayeh v Barchester Healthcare Ltd  IRLR 387 CA – Whether the tribunal had erred by substituting its own views about the fairness of dismissal for those of the employer.
Adamson v Swansea University -  All ER (D) 38 (May)– Daniel successfully defended an "appearance of bias” appeal brought by a claimant on the basis of allegations of irregular conduct on the part of (other!) counsel and the tribunal judge. Following cross examination before the EAT the appeal was dismissed with a substantial costs order made against the appellant.
Software 2000 Ltd Andrews  ICR 825,  IRLR 568 EAT. Elias J gave guidance, in what has become the most frequently cited authority on the correct approach to possible Polkey reductions, following a multi-claimant tribunal hearing.
McPherson v BNP Paribas  IRLR 588. Probably the leading CA authority on costs orders by employment tribunals. Daniel acted for the employer who secured a costs order for £90k against the investment banker claimant.
A more comprehensive list of his reported cases is set out on his downloadable C.V.
Daniel is regularly instructed – both for anxious employers and departing employees - in cases involving employee competition. In the most recent edition of Chambers and Partners it said that his "broad-based employment practice is founded on his core expertise in relation to restraint of trade issues”.
Issues such as the enforcement of restrictive covenants (in employment contracts and in share sale or partnership agreements) and garden leave, the legality of team moves, breaches of fiduciary duties and the misuse of confidential information frequently arise. Recent work includes:-
Securing an injunction to prevent the sale of shares in the context of substantial boardroom battle. The hearing of the claim is due in 2015.
Getting leave to appeal to the CA against an adverse costs order following a without notice application made against a departing employee. The case would have addressed important issues of principle concerning the costs in such applications, but the case settled once leave was granted.
Appearing for the successful Claimant in J M Finn v Holliday  IRLR 102 (QB), an important garden leave case in which a 12 month garden leave injunction was granted following a speedy trial (having earlier successfully secured an injunction at the interim stage following a contested hearing). Daniel also appeared in SG & R Valuation Service Co LLC v Boudrais and others  IRLR 770, the leading High Court authority on garden leave injunctions in the absence of a garden leave clause, and which was cited in Holliday.
His injunctive practice also extends to non- employment disputes - e.g. the discharge of a worldwide freezing order in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others -  All ER (D) 160 (Nov)
Daniel acts for employers and employees in high value discrimination claims. In the most recent edition of Chambers and Partners it records that "He came up with the most imaginative and fabulous argument in a recent discrimination claim."
He appeared both at the tribunal and in the EAT in Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd  I.C.R. 907, an important age discrimination case which has wider significance for all claims of direct discrimination. An appeal is due to be heard in the Court of Appeal in March 2015.
Other recent cases include being instructed by a leading City law firm to defend race and sex discrimination claims brought against it by a senior solicitor, and acting for a full equity partner in her claims for sex discrimination against another leading firm of solicitors. He has also recently acted for a well-known University in connection with a series of discrimination claims brought against it, its Vice Chancellor and senior academics.Daniel acted for the Respondent in J v DLA Piper LLP UK ICR 1052,  IRLR 936, an Equality and Human Rights Commission backed appeal before the EAT President which addressed important aspects of the definition of "disability” for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in the context of depression.
He also frequently appears in whistleblowing cases: his most recent such cases include him acting for a leading medical charity (all claims brought against it dismissed after a lengthy hearing) and for the whistleblower employee against British Telecom Plc (which resulted in a substantial six figure settlement following cross examination of the employer’s witnesses).
Daniel is frequently instructed in employment related contractual disputes, typically concerning such matters as bonus claims, enhanced redundancy payments, PHI related claims, claims arising out of the implied duty of trust and confidence and shareholder disputes, often of high value.
Examples of this work are Silvey v Pendragon  IRLR 685,  PLR 277 CA, which was a successful appeal in the CA on the assessment of damages for wrongful dismissal in the context of pension loss; and Marlow v East Thames Housing Group Ltd  IRLR 798 a PHI claim in which the High Court considered the duty of an employer, as a facet of the implied duty of trust and confidence, to sue an insurance company which refuses to made PHI payments in respect of one of its employees.
As well as substantive claims Daniel is also highly experienced in employment related High Court applications – e.g. applications for pre-action disclosure under CPR Part 36.16.
Daniel was educated at Winchester College, Hampshire, and Oriel College, Oxford University. He graduated from the latter with First Class Honours in PPE. He then completed a post graduate diploma in law at City University before being called to the Bar at Middle Temple in 1994. He was awarded the Diplock Scholarship by Middle Temple.
Daniel is a member of the Employment Lawyers Association, for whose Briefing Newsletter he is an occasional contributor. He is also a member of the ELAAS scheme under which advocates appear pro-bono to assist litigants in person with apparently hopeless appeals in the EAT
Daniel lives with his wife, a Consultant at St Georges Hospital, Tooting, and their three children in South London, within striking distance of Tooting Bec Lido. Although he once cycled to Istanbul, he rarely now finds time to pedal further afield than Richmond Park, normally with a child in tow.
He is a pupil supervisor and one of Chambers’ Equality Officers.