Disciplinary Panel of The Rugby Football Union
AREAS OF PRACTICE
Regulatory/Health and Safety
Tom Gilbart receives instructions in all areas of Employment Law; Regulatory Proceedings; Professional Discipline and Health and Safety work.
He is ranked in Chambers and Partners 2018 for his professional disciplinary work and is listed by the Legal 500 as a leading junior for employment law on the Northern Circuit.
In 2018, Mr Gilbart was appointed as a Recorder of the Crown Court, assigned to the Northern Circuit.
Mr Gilbart is registered as part of the Bar Council's Direct Access scheme.
Tom Gilbart appears on behalf of respondents and claimants in all areas of employment law.
Recent work includes:
- D v LA (2018): Represented Local Authority in disability discrimination case involving thousands of pages and against leading counsel.
- Y v SS (2017): Resisted claims of sex and race discrimination against large national company which had dismissed employee.
- KS v GT (2017): Represented woman dismissed for pregnancy. Full amount of claim for injury to feelings (£10,000) awarded.
- L v GH UKEAT (2016): Having successfully defended claims of whistle-blowing dismissal at first instance, Mr Gilbart resisted the claimant's application before the EAT for time to be extended for submission of her appeal. This involved cross-examination of the Claimant before the EAT.
- W v D (2016): Resisted an application for interim relief made against a Local Authority in a wide ranging whistle-blowing claim.
- Moore v Cadeby Stone UKEAT/0202/15/MC (2015): Appeared on behalf of the employer to successfully resist an appeal. The EAT accepted Mr Gilbart’s argument that de-motivation was a potentially fair factor to consider when selecting for redundancy.
- W v LA (2015): Represented a large local authority respondent in a lengthy constructive dismissal case involving allegations of whistle-blowing concerning vulnerable children in local authority care. He successfully applied for the whistle-blowing allegations to be dismissed part way through the case. At the conclusion of the case, all of the remaining claims were also dismissed.
- NHS Direct NHS Trust v Gunn UKEAT/0128/14/BA (2015): Mr Gilbart appeared for the Appellant before the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Langstaff J issued "important guidance" on the interface between the TUPE regulations and the Equality Act 2010. A legally complicated case in which the Claimant was represented by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Secretary of State for Education intervened.
- Exol Lubricants Ltd v Birch & Anor UKEAT/0219/14/KN (2014): A widely reported case on the definition of "place of work" for travelling employees. Mr Gilbart represented both Claimants before both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Having succeeded in presenting the claims at first instance, Mr Gilbart successfully resisted the employer’s appeal in the EAT.
- S and Ors v B (2015): Mr Gilbart represented 3 lead claimants and 30 group claimants in a wide-ranging claim against major international business. The case listed for the best part of two weeks. Mr Gilbart successfully argued that the Respondent had discriminated on the basis of maternity.
- The matter of LFR (2015): Mr Gilbart represented an equity partner in a major national Law Firm in a mediation involving the law firm which had previously employed him. This involved sensitive management of a potentially high value claim in a case involving allegations of whistle-blowing and serious financial misconduct.
- The matter of FMP (2015): Mr Gilbart appeared for a Claimant with significant mental health difficulties in a complicated judicial mediation which involved a wide-ranging claim in a continuing employment relationship.
- P and B v EL (2014): Successfully arguing associative discrimination on behalf of two Claimants in a sham redundancy case.
- TB v R (2014): Representing a major national company in an unfair dismissal claim brought by a former executive. A case involving detailed analysis of profit projections and accountancy procedures.
- B and Ors (2014): Advising a large local authority employer in a series of claims following dismissals arising from alleged malpractice in a care home.
Mr Gilbart is experienced in appearing before the Magistrates Court; Crown Court; High Court; Court of Appeal; Coroner's Court and the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.
He is on the GMC List of Approved Counsel and has represented defendants prosecuted by local authorities; the Gambling Commission; Care Quality Commission; Fire Authorities and the Health and Safety Executive.
In 2015, Mr Gilbart was invited to assist a major national law firm in drafting their response to the sentencing guidelines council’s public consultation on sentencing health and safety offences.
His recent work includes:
Health and Safety
- HSE v F (2017) – Defending company where health and safety failures led to death
- HSE v C (2017) – Defending sole trader before Crown Court in work at height regulations case.
- HSE v R (2017) - Defending company where workers injured in trench collapse
- HSE v W (2016) - Defending company where workers poisoned by carbon monoxide
- HSE v M (2016) - Defending family company in multi-handed case involving work at height regulations
- HSE v I (2016) - Defending company where worker electrocuted
- HSE v S (2016): Defending a company in a lead poisoning case
- HSE v SD (2016): Defending a factory charged with a raft of health and safety offences culminating in a serious accident to an employee. Lengthy sentencing exercise before Crown Court.
- HSE v PC (2016): Defending a company where sentencing judge persuaded to substantially “step back” from fine suggested by sentencing guidelines on basis of company's finances.
- LA v B (2016): Defending a business charged with various Health and Safety and RIDDOR offences. The case involved extensive evidence and experts in safe play for children. The case also included a contested application for defence costs under the Prosecution of Offences Act.
- HSE v DM (2015): Representing a manufacturing company in a case where a young apprentice had suffered significant and life-changing injury in the work place.
- Matter of M (2018): Representing police force in Article 2 inquest
- Matter of KW (2017): Representing a business in an inquest involving a series of health and safety failures by the company. Reported in the national press.
- Matter of JG (2016): Representing a care home in an inquest involving investigations into alleged misconduct and failures by the care home.
- Matter of NQ (2016): Advising a company involved in a high profile inquest involving death of a fire fighter.
- Matter of HW (2015): Jury Inquest. Representing a working farm where a young boy had been tragically killed. The case attracted significant national media attention.
- Matter of JM (2015): Representing the family of the deceased in a jury inquest into a carbon monoxide death.
- The Matter of RJF (2014): Representing the family of the deceased in a complicated jury inquest requiring detailed cross-examination of engineering experts and legal argument against Leading Counsel.
- The Matter of MS (2014): Representing a care home in a case where a resident with dementia died shortly after being attacked by another resident. Reported in the national press.
- COP v A (2018): Advising police force in dealing with complicated and novel police misconduct issue
- H v AP (2018): Submissions before the Court of Appeal in case involving professional discipline and disability discrimination.
- GMC v F (2017): Representing GMC in case involving cross-examination of professor of oncology and consultant surgeon
- GMC v K (2017): Representing the GMC in lengthy case involving voluminous papers; expert witnesses and cross-examination of doctor lasting a week.
- GMC v M and B (2016-17): Representing the GMC in long-running, complicated case against two eminent surgeons alleged to have conduct research unethically. Over 11 weeks of hearings against leading counsel.
- GMC v Q (2016): Representing GMC in professional performance case. Defence expert accepted in cross-examination that he had not understood how he should have performed his task.
- GMC v S (2016): Representing the GMC in a case alleging that a doctor had sexually harassed colleagues. Reported in national press.
- GMC v K (2015): Representing the GMC in a sensitive case involving a General Practitioner accused of raping his own patient.
- GMC v P (2015): Representing the GMC in a factually complicated case involving numerous allegations against a doctor accused of issuing a significant number of incorrect prescriptions. The case involved lengthy cross-examination of pharmacological experts.
- Matter of WK (2013): Acting as an independent legal advisor to elected representatives during a Local Authority dismissal appeal.
- Matter of BAC (2014): Representing a headmaster at an internal disciplinary appeal conducted by school governors.
- Matter of CG (2014): Representing a local authority employee at a dismissal appeal.
- LA v OR (2017) - Defending care home charged with fire safety offences. Paper heavy, complicated case involving expert evidence and smoke modelling.
- Local Authority v SC (2016): Representing a family run business charged with number of food safety offences.
- Environment Agency v Manning (2014): Representing the man responsible for "one of Wigan's biggest ever environmental messes" in a case attracting significant attention from local press and the local Member of Parliament. This case involved 3 days of legal submissions before the High Court.
- R v Alston and Alston (2012): Defence counsel in a case prosecuted jointly by the Gambling Commission and the Illegal Money Lending Team. Paper heavy case receiving national press attention.
Tom Gilbart is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Tom Gilbart can be found here.
Tom Gilbart’s clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that he provides. The contact details for his employment clerks can be found here; his clerks for inquests and regulatory work can be found here. It is most common for Tom Gilbart to undertake Court and Tribunal services for a brief fee plus additional refresher days. For advisory work, drafting and conferences it is most commonly charged at an hourly rate. Tom Gilbart will typically return paperwork within 21 days, however professional commitments, complexity and volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.