Matt JACKSON

Call: 2011

Call 020 7827 4000

Expertise

Employment
Equality and Discrimination
Human Rights
Public and Administrative Law

“He is super intelligent, and knows employment law inside out.” - Legal 500 2025

“Matthew is razor-sharp and his depth of knowledge is staggering. If he feels pressure, he doesn’t show it. He is a persuasive advocate with detailed knowledge of the law.” - Legal 500 2024

“He is calm under pressure, methodical, insightful and unflappable. An advocate who is equally comfortable before the Employment Tribunal or Court of Appeal. A go-to junior for complex strategic litigation in employment.” - Legal 500 2023

“Matt has an encyclopaedic knowledge of employment law. He is a clear-thinker with a really good strategic brain. A talented advocate.” - Legal 500 2022

Employment, Equality and Discrimination
Matt is a go-to junior in employment cases, particularly in appeals on novel or complex points of law. He often appears against silks and more senior juniors. He has particular expertise in whistleblowing cases (including the ongoing Supreme Court case Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti), legally complex contractual matters (in both the Tribunal and Civil Courts) and cases involving extra-territorial or state based jurisdiction.
Matt’s recent cases include Nursing & Midwifery Council v Somerville [2022] EWCA Civ 229, [2022] ICR 755 (employment status of regulatory panel chairs), Kingdom of Spain v Lorenzo (EAT case on state immunity and continuing effect of EU law in the UK), and Fentem v Outform EMEA Ltd [2022] EAT 36 (is a contract terminated by an employer in a period of notice given by the employee a “dismissal”).
Other cases of note include Jhuti v Royal Mail Group (SSBEIS and the Law Society Intervening) [2018] ICR 1077 (establishing the scope of the employment tribunals’ powers to appoint litigation friends), Patel v Folkestone Nursing Home Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1689 & 1843; [2019] ICR 273 (whether a contractual appeal automatically revives a contract and on remission what the standard for review of a procedurally unfair decision in the ET is) and two cases on whether the UK has properly implemented the EU discrimination directives (Tough v Revenue and Customs Commissioners and Jamu v Asda Stores Ltd and Others).
Matt has previously worked for an ABS owned by a leading legal expenses insurer and brings his experience with him to the bar.
Human rights & Public and Administrative Law
Matt covers the full range of “traditional” judicial review claims as well cases before the administrative tribunals system. He has developed a niche in judicial review claims against the police in relation both to unlawfully issued cautions, and data protection cases where extra statutory disclosures are made to employers.
His knowledge of employment law has assisted with judicial review claims against public authority employers and in particular advising on claims to quash secondary legislation that amends fundamental employment rights.
Free Representation Unit
Advocate
Industrial Law Society
Employment Lawyers Association
Employment, Equality and Discrimination
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55, [2020] 3 All ER 257,[2020] ICR 731, Junior counsel for the Claimant in the Supreme Court establishing for the first time that the reasons of a person other than a dismissing officer can be attributed to the employer where there are dishonest means employed. Matt remains instructed alone in relation to the ongoing parts of this case including forthcoming remedy hearing where a 7 figure sum has been awarded and is being appealed.
Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville [2022] EWCA Civ 229, [2022] ICR 755. Court of Appeal case considering the impact of Uber v Aslam on whether a panel chair of a regulatory tribunal can be a “worker”.
Gillespie v Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EAT 133. Scope of a claim and whether the Employment Tribunal properly decided the case before it.
Fentem v Outform EMEA Ltd [2022] EAT 36. Whether a contract terminated by an employer in a period of notice given by the employee is “dismissed”. Permission granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal on basis EAT was bound by an earlier EAT authority.
Tough v Revenue and Customs Commissioners UKEAT/0255/19. Did the UK properly implement Directive 2000/78/EC and are claims of associative disability discrimination available?
Kendall, Kim and Das v KKDC England Ltd & anor UKEAT/0217-0219/19. Scope of the “skilled adviser” test in relation to reasonable practicability.
Human Kind Charity v Gittens [2020] IRLR 412 (EAT). Is there a right to silence in disciplinary proceedings and to what extent?
Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd, the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy & The Law Society [2018] ICR 1077 – Leading counsel in the Employment Appeal Tribunal successfully arguing that Johnson v Edwardian International Hotels Ltd should be overruled. It was decided that Employment Tribunal did have the power to appoint litigation friends.
Patel v Folkestone Nursing Home Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1689 & 1843; [2019] ICR 273. Where an employee appeals against their dismissal in a contractual process if the appeal is successful can the employer can unilaterally revive the contract?
Jamu v Asda Stores Ltd and Others UKEAT/0221/15 – Appeal on scope of claim decided and does Directive 2000/78/EC require there to be a cause of action for associative victimisation?
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Knight [2014] IRLR 605. Can an unremunerated director be an “employee”?
Vernon v Azure Support Services & Others [2014] All ER (D) 11 (Dec) (EAT). Where liability for discrimination transfers to a new employer via TUPE does time for a non-equal pay Equality Act 2010 claim run from the date of the act or the date of the transfer?
Audere Medical Services v Sanderson [2013] All ER (D) 124 (Sep) (EAT). Can a Polkey or contributory fault reduction can be made in a case of automatically unfair dismissal.

Human rights & Public and Administrative Law
R (KR) v Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police – Conceded claim challenging a caution issued 16 years before proceedings were issued on the basis of improper procedures and uninformed consent being obtained. Had potential to invalidate all cautions issued between approximately 2000 and 2007
R (GB) v Manchester City Council – A judicial review on the first known case on the ability to levy charges against a homeless person under section 211 (4) Housing Act 1996. The local authority conceded the day before the final hearing.
JS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] UKUT 36 (AAC); [2014] AACR 26 – Meaning of the phrase “exclusive use” in the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006.
AG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CE/1107/2013 – Appealing a finding in relation to Employment and Support Allowance and misapplication of the 2008 regulations.
LLB (Hons) Law – University of Reading
Legal 500 2025: (Employment) “He is super intelligent, and knows employment law inside out.”
Legal 500 2024: (Employment) “Matthew is razor-sharp and his depth of knowledge is staggering. If he feels pressure, he doesn’t show it. He is a persuasive advocate with detailed knowledge of the law.”
Legal 500 2023: “He is calm under pressure, methodical, insightful and unflappable. An advocate who is equally comfortable before the Employment Tribunal or Court of Appeal. A go-to junior for complex strategic litigation in employment.”
Legal 500 2022: “Matt has an encyclopaedic knowledge of employment law. He is a clear-thinker with a really good strategic brain. A talented advocate.”