Nicholas Siddall KC

Nicholas has particular experience and interest in whistleblowing litigation. He undertakes work on behalf of both claimants and respondents in this field and recognises the complicated issues posed by such claims. He is used to advancing/responding to interim relief applications in this context.

Instructions of note in the recent past include:

• Appearing on behalf of an international plastics manufacturer in defence of a 10 day claim of whistleblowing brought by the UK Head of Operations and the Head of one of its UK sites where the claimants contend that they were dismissed as a result of alleged protected disclosures. The combined remedy sought was in excess of £1.3 million.
• Acting on behalf of a Midlands based Pension Fund administrator in defence of a 13 day claim of whistleblowing brought by its former Head of Legal;
• Acting on behalf of a Lloyd’s insurance syndicate in defence of a 10 day whistleblowing claim where the Claimant sought a career long loss of £2.6 million;
• Appearing on behalf of an international oil exploitation company in defence of a 10 day claim where the Claimant asserted protected disclosure arising from the bribery of senior government officials of the state of Niger. The Claimant sought damages in excess of £30 million.
• Appearing on behalf of the former head of legal of an international financial institution who was joined as a party to a whistleblowing claim listed for 20 days brought by her former immediate subordinate.
• Defending interim relief applications brought by an Engineer in the Technology section of a leading UK financial institution on the basis of her alleged whistleblowing;
• Acting on behalf of an international defence contractor in defence of claims of whistleblowing, disability discrimination and unfair dismissal brought by an operative after the revocation of his security clearance by the UK Government;.
• Appearing in defence of an 8 day claim for whistleblowing dismissal on behalf of an international financial institution. The Claimant seeks damages of £2.3 million reflecting a career long loss. He succeeded before the Court of Appeal on this issue of separability and the Claimant’s/Protect’s application to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.

Key reported decisions

• Argence-Lafon-v-Ark Syndicate [2025] EAT 124 (EAT)
• Kong-v-Gulf International Bank [2023] ICR 355 (SC)
• Kong-v-Gulf International Bank [2022] ICR 1513, [2022] IRLR 854 (CA)
• Kong-v-Gulf International Bank [2021] IDS Brief 1142 (EAT)
• Day-v-Lewisham NHS and Health Education England [2017] IRLR 623, [2017] ICR 917 (CA)
• Day-v-Lewisham NHS and Health Education England [2016] ICR 878, [2016] IRLR 415, [2016] Med LR 269 (EAT)

Nicholas acts on behalf of claimants and respondents in heavy weight matters encompassing all facets of unlawful discrimination. He is acutely aware of the sensitivity required in addressing such claims and adopts a collaborative and strategic approach in either prosecuting or defending the same.

Recent cases of interest in this area include:

• Acting successfully on behalf of an international payment business in defence of an 11 day case of sexual, racial and disability harassment/discrimination where the Claimant seeks a career long loss of in excess of £2 million;
• Successfully defending an 8 day claim of maternity discrimination and sex based harassment brought by a partner in a London based property LLP seeking a remedy of in excess of £3 million including a subsequent award of £225,000 of costs.
• Appearing in defence of a 10 day claim of religious discrimination where a Jewish Zionist asserts that social media post by her colleagues commenting on Israel’s response in Gaza amounts to harassment of her.
• Acting in defence of a multi-million pound claim of whistleblowing and sex discrimination brought by a former analyst against an international financial institution.
• Acting for a leading academic who secured an award of £3.3 million against his former employer university.
• Acting in a 10 day claim on behalf an International Account Manager of Barclays Bank asserting widespread disability discrimination with a pleaded value of in excess of £1 million.
• Acting successfully in a 10 day claim of disability discrimination on behalf of a former deputy head teacher of an Academy Trust seeking a remedy in excess of £450,000.
• A 7 day claim on behalf of a former analyst at Societe Generale who contended that his redundancy was a sham to remove him by reason of his diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. The value of the remedy sought was in excess of £2 million.
• A 13 day hearing defending an equal value claim alongside allegations of gender discrimination/harassment/victimisation brought by a female Operations Director of an international retail technology consultancy seeking damages in excess of £600,000;
• An 8 day hearing defending claims of race and age discrimination/harassment brought against the Embassy of the State of Qatar involving issues of diplomatic immunity and the effect of such a plea on potential liability of the Embassy under the Equality Act.

Key reported decisions

• Matuszowicz v Hull City Council [2009] IRLR 288, [2009] ICR 1170, [2009] 3 ALL ER 685 (CA)
• Lingard-v-Leading Learners’ Academy Trust [2023] EAT 52 (EAT)
• Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust-v-Blake [2015] ALL ER (D) 389 (EAT)
• Howorth-v-N Lancashire PCT [2014] All ER (D) 159 (EAT)
• Hasan-v-Shell International PPE & Ors [2014] All ER (D) 15, [2014] IDS Brief 993 (EAT)
• Farrell-v-South Yorkshire Police Authority [2011] EqLR 934 (ET)

Nicholas has significant experience in the area of TUPE litigation.  He was successful in his representation of the GMB before the EAT in securing a judgment that the TUPE Regulations and the Acquired Rights Directive are of trans-national effect and can apply outside the territorial scope of the European Union. He also appeared in an appeal addressing whether TUPE applies to the MOD’s decision to award a military support contract in the Falkland Islands to a Dutch company. The decision of the EAT addressed the application of the Service Provision Change definition contained within TUPE 2006 for the first time in an international context. He regularly appears for and advises both employers and employees as to the likely application of TUPE.

Examples of recent instructions of interest are:

• Advising an international aviation catering business whether its assumption of a partial service on the dismissal of a former provider was a relevant transfer for the purposes of TUPE
• Defending a collective unfair dismissal/redundancy consultation claim over 8 days brought by 21 baggage handlers at Manchester Airport who contended that they were unfairly dismissed following a relevant transfer. The value of the remedy sought was in excess of £2 million. The matter was successfully appealed to the EAT.
• Appearing for a prominent Children’s charity in defence of allegations that its assumption of certain elements of the functions of a separate insolvent charity had the effect of transferring the employment of the former charity’s Head of Finance to it;
• Appearing for the transferee in a Regulation 12 TUPE claim and seeking to claim as a remedy damages for a fine imposed by the Low Pay Unit for historic underpayment of the transferred employees and reputational damages for the naming and shaming of the transferee.
• Appearing for the transferee in pursuing a regulation 11 TUPE claim seeking a remedy of £1.2 million as regards the provision of inadequate ELI in a cleaning contract transfer.
• Appearing for the English Institute for Sport in defence of an 8-day claim brought by a physiotherapist as regards the alleged transfer of the provision of services to GB Taekwondo.

Key reported decisions

• Swissport Ltd v Exley and others [2017] ICR 1288 (EAT)
• Argyll Coastal Sevices-v-Stirling & Ors [2012] IDS Brief 949 (EAT)
• Holis Metal Industries v The GMB and Newell [2008] IRLR 187, [2008] ICR 464 (EAT)

Nicholas undertakes work across all facets of statutory employment law. He receives instructions on behalf of individuals, unions and employers. He was regularly instructed by UNITE, the UDM and Nautilus. He receives instructions from employers ranging from SMEs to blue chip conglomerates.

Examples of the matters in which recently he has been involved are:

• Appearing in defence of collective worker status claims brought by Court Interpreters and panel members of the GMC and the NMC
• Advising a series of national businesses, an international maritime company, a national pub chain, a national chain of department stores, a catering business, a factoring business and an international airline as to the compliance of their systems of pay with the National Minimum Wage.
• Appearing in an appeal to the EAT on whether a voluntary season ticket deferred purchase scheme operated by a Championship Football club breaches the National Minimum Wage Act.
• Appearing in an appeal to the EAT as to the effect of an offer of a contract of employment to a worker on the principle set out in King-v-Sash Windows as regards holiday pay.
• Appearing in the first Employment Tribunal decision addressing the lawfulness of the implementation of the “Swedish derogation” in the Agency Workers Regulations.
• Appearing in a test case supported by the BMA as to whether payments to consultants for Waiting List Initiative work are to be included in the proper calculation of holiday pay.
• Advising an international maritime haulage company as to the lawfulness of amending the contracts of 39 of its employees at a specific location or whether the same amounts to an unlawful inducement to their giving up collective bargaining.
• Advising a Magic Circle firm as to the correct manner to amend its internal policies to address holiday pay in the context of Permanent Health Insurance.

Key reported decisions

• HMRC-v-Middlesbrough FC [2020] ICR 1404 (EAT)
• Kaur-v-Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, [2018] IRLR 833, [2018] 4 All ER 238, [2019] ICR 1 (CA),
• Stratford-v-Auto Trail Limited [2016] ALL ER (D) 208, [2017] IDS Brief 1063 (EAT)
• Hasan-v-Shell International PPE & Ors [2014] All ER (D) 15, [2014] IDS Brief 993 (EAT)
• RM Gaskarth-v-Mooney [2013] ALL ER (D) 205, [2013] IDS Brief 982 (EAT)
• Bray-v-Monarch Personnel Refuelling (UK) Limited [2013] IDS Brief 972 (ET)
• Pearce-v-Receptek [2013] ALL ER (D) 364
• Pybus-v-Geoquip Limited (No 2) [2013] ALL ER (D) 204
• Bridgeman-v-ABP [2012] IRLR 639, [2012] ICR D26 (EAT)
• Bashir & Woodward-v-Co-Operative Financial Services [2012] ALL ER (D) 40
• Pinewood Repro Limited-v-Page [2011] ICR 508 (EAT)
• Pybus-v-Geoquip Limited [2011] ALL ER (D) 244 (EAT)
• Fenton & UNISON-v-NPSSY & Addaction [2010] IRLR 930 (EAT)
• Arkley-v- Sea Fish Authority [2010] Pens LR 205, [2010] ALL ER (D) 170, IDS Brief 918 (EAT)
• Cokayne v BASC [2008] ICR 185 (EAT)
• Cartlidge v Dugdale PLC [2007] ALL ER (D) 312 (EAT)
• Hughes & Beaumont v GMB [2006] ALL ER(D) 06 (EAT)
• Hussain v John Dobson & Sons [2005] ALL ER (D) 19 (EAT)
• Robinson Steele-v-R D Retail [2004] IDS Brief 754 (ET reference to ECJ)
• Firth v BRC Barnsley [2004] ALL ER (D) 149 (EAT)
• Warren v S&N Pubs and Restaurants [2003] ALL ER(D) (EAT)
• Roberts-v-Skelmersdale College [2003] ICR 1127, [2004] IRLR 69 (CA)
• Barlow & Snelson v P E Jones [2002] ALL ER (D) 20 (EAT)
• Wilson-v-Warman International [2002] ALL ER (D) 94 (EAT)

Nicholas is ranked in Band 1 in Chambers UK 2026 for his investigation work. His entry reads:

“Nicholas Siddall is an experienced silk who is instructed by companies to investigate workplace discrimination and whistleblowing matters.”

“He is very professional and thorough, and worked at speed against tight deadlines.”

“Nicholas is lovely to work with and always prepared to go the extra mile. He has an impressive intellect.”

“Nick Siddall was excellent – thorough yet practical and extremely easy to work with.”

“He understands the bigger picture and has been super responsive.”

“Nicholas Siddall of Littleton Chambers is an experienced silk who is instructed by companies to investigate workplace discrimination and whistleblowing matters.”

Chambers UK 2025

Nicholas has also considerable experience of acting as an independent investigating officer and has experience of investigating diverse grievance and disciplinary matters, often involving detailed allegations and a wide range of witnesses. In this work, Nicholas has been instructed by a wide-range of medical professionals and organisations, including medical defence unions, law firms, academic institutions, charities, banks, hedge funds, international technology providers, international automotive businesses, international fashion brands and private companies across various industries.

Recent examples are:

• Conducting an investigation on behalf of a world top 10 international automotive business into allegations of sexual harassment, bribery and abuse of the expenses policy by former senior member of its organisation.
• Conducting a lengthy investigation into the CEO of a national car dealership and whether their conduct amounted to a ‘material default event’ under the terms of a share purchase agreement.
• Conducting a lengthy investigation into the CEO of a Local Authority where the allegations include bullying, discrimination and misleading regulatory bodies
• Acting as the appeal officer for a leading international bank determining an appeal by a rates analyst contending that he had been the subject of repeated bullying by his direct line manager.
• Sitting as the Chairman of an internal appeal brought by the former CEO of an extremely well known international fashion brand appealing his dismissal on grounds of serious sexual harassment of junior female employees.
• Hearing an internal grievance appeal brought by an employee of an international price comparison website where the employee alleged that she had been harassed by her expression of gender critical views.
• wide-ranging grievances raised by a legal assistant in a law firm asserting discrimination and unfair treatment by one of the partners of the same.
• A disciplinary investigation in an international mining company arising from grievances raised by the environmental team as regards a Development Director in the context of a mining project which would affect an international heritage site.
• A month long investigation into wide-ranging alleged bullying and harassment within an international financial institution.
• A two month long investigation into allegations of racist bullying within the UK subsidiary of an International software provider.
• A two month long investigation on behalf of a Royal Institute in order to investigate a query raised by the Charity Commissioners as to whether the provision of a flat to the former President as a part of his remuneration package was lawful and in accordance with the objects of the Institute.
• An investigation for an International Software provider to assess whether its UK based Head of Legal had engaged in unlawful bullying of her subordinate based in the Middle East.
• Nicholas was also recently instructed to sit as a disciplinary panel chair in disciplinary hearing conducted by an FSA regulated entity operating on the Isle of Man against its Head of Compliance.

Nicholas has significant experience of employment based contractual litigation in the High Court. Nicholas is regularly instructed to appear in both the Queen’s Bench Division and the Chancery Division of the High Court in breach of employment contract and business competition cases (particularly in relation to applications for injunctive relief). In particular he has experience in relation to: Confidential Information, Springboard Relief, Restrictive Covenants, Database Rights, Team Moves, diversion of business opportunities and bonus claims.

Recent cases in this area include:

• Securing ‘without notice’ non-compete relief to restrain the Head of an International Cosmetic Surgery business from engaging in a competitive venture.
• Securing an injunction on behalf of an international automotive group to restrain the employment of its senior technical officer by a competitior.
• Representing an international provider of time management software in securing injunctions to prevent the employment of its UK head of sales with a direct competitor.
• Representing a national events agency in defending claims of unlawfully securing the custom of a multi-national telecommunications business through an alleged misuse of confidential information.
• Representing the former COO of an international brand loyalty conglomerate as regards an injunction seeking to restrain his employment with a competitor and addressing the potential enforceability of his post-termination restrictions under Delaware Law.
• Representing an international Technology Company in securing non- solicitation/dealing injunctions to prevent the unlawful competitive activities of its head of UK Sales on his move to its direct competitor.
• Securing injunctions to prevent the Sales Manager of an international IT recycling provider from misusing its key confidential information whilst employed by its main competitor alongside affidavit evidence and wide-ranging forensic imaging.
• Securing injunctions to protect the confidential information of a manufacturer engaged in the provision of bespoke braking systems to various Formula 1 teams and NASCAR.
• Representing an international promotional agency in seeking injunctions to restrain the unlawful post-employment activities of its former UK MD;
• Representing a former partner in an international talent agency in seeking to secure her release from her post-termination restrictions as a result of the pre-termination harassment she faced.

Key reported decisions:

• Derma Med & Ors-v-Dr Zack Ally and Ors [2023] EWHC 1555 (KB) (Constable J)
• Bowman International-v-Ashby & Turner [2022] EWHC 1384 (QB) (QBD Clare Ambrose DHCJ)
• S Riddler Ltd-v-Wierzbicki [2021] EWHC 2964 (QB) (QBD Steyn J)
• Sportcal Global Communications Ltd v Laflin [2020] EWHC 3674 (QB) (QBD Wall J)
• ASE-v-Daly & Kendrick [2014] EWHC 2171 (QB) (QBD Lewis J)

Nicholas regularly applies his expertise in statutory discrimination law to claims in the education and goods and services sector in the civil courts. He is acutely aware of the similarities and, crucially the differences between, litigation of discrimination claims in the County Court as distinct from the Employment Tribunal.

Examples of recent instructions of interest are:

• Appearing on behalf of a University in defence of multiple claims of disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments advanced by a former student. The claim involved multiple allegations and the claimant contended that as a result he had lost a successful career at the bar. Damages of £10 million were sought.
• Representing the York Barbican theatre in defence of a claim of a failure to make reasonable adjustments as regards the application of its charging policy regarding carers of disabled persons.
• Appearing on behalf of the MEN Arena in defence of claims of discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments brought by a disabled person as regards adequate provision of toilet facilities.
• Advising a national retail chain as regards the access issues raised by the format of its premises and as regards a threatened claim of a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• Advising a North East based Local Authority as to the gender/religion and belief, and gender reassignment discrimination issues arising from its operation of a historic Turkish Baths.
• Advising an international hotel chain as regards its obligations regarding the provision of television access across its estate in order to meet the needs of hearing-impaired persons.

Nicholas is a member of Littleton’s disciplinary and regulatory team and he accepts instructions in a variety of disciplinary and regulatory environments.

Many of Nicholas’ cases have been in a healthcare setting which has given him a detailed understanding in respect of internal disciplinary procedures (personal and professional conduct cases) and the developing jurisprudence concerning the court’s jurisdiction to grant injunctions to restrain either the dismissal or suspension of medical or allied professionals.

Recent examples of matters on which Nicholas has been instructed include:

• Successfully appearing as an advocate on behalf of Health Education England in response to an internal appeal lodged by a GP trainee against the removal of his National Training Number.
• Advising a prominent consultant surgeon as to the availability of injunctive relief to prevent the termination of his training engagement on the basis of alleged whistleblowing disclosures.
• Representing an East Anglian based NHS Trust in defence of applications for interim relief and declarations brought by its Head of Children’s Services.
• Appearing on behalf of a training provider in an internal appeal against the decision of the National Plant Operators Registration Scheme to remove the provider’s training registration;
• Securing an injunction to allow the return to work of a prominent diabetologist wrongly excluded from his NHS practice on the Isle of Man.