"Daniella is a brilliant tactician and an excellent cross-examiner. Her clear advice inspires confidence in clients."Legal 500 2022
"Indefatigable, she thinks round corners."Legal 500 2021
"Cuts through complexities and makes it easy for clients to make commercial decisions."Legal 500 2020
"A robust, fluent and persuasive advocate."Legal 500 2019
"Her work on all matters has been exceptional and I have no hesitation in recommending or using Daniella."Head of Dispute Resolution, at Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners ranked firm
Daniella Gilbert is an experienced practitioner specialising in employment law and commercial litigation. She has been recognised as a leading junior in employment law in the Legal 500. She acts for both claimants and defendants / respondents. Her clients range from individuals, employees, sole traders and small businesses to large employers and Fortune 500 companies.
Daniella’s precision and attention to detail has garnered her a reputation as an advocate well able to undertake particularly complex and high value cases. She appears in courts at many levels including the Court of Appeal, High Court, Employment Appeal Tribunal, Employment Tribunal and County Courts.
Clients value her thorough preparation, ability to quickly grasp the complexities of a case and provide detailed and clear advice, and her commitment to robustly representing her client’s position.
Daniella is qualified to accept instructions via the Public Access Scheme.
Daniella has particular experience in disputes involving:
Daniella acted for the respondent company (Z) who obtained a European Order for Payment against the applicant (O). O argued that the EOP was unenforceable and should be set aside because it had served an Annex II declaration refusing service. Daniella successfully argued that the Annex II declaration had not been properly served and the EOP was valid. The Court refused O’s applications for a declaration and to set aside the EOP. Enforcement was stayed. O is currently seeking permission to appeal.
Appeal on whether the claimant was required to sign a form of authority before the council was obliged to release funds to him. Judge at first instance found the claimant was required to sign the form, so the claim was dismissed. That was upheld on appeal. Daniella successfully represented the respondent.
Daniella represented the Defendant to a High Court claim for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of restrictive covenants. The claim arose following fraud committed by an estate agent against his previous employers.
Daniella acted for the second respondent (“HS”) at first instance, on appeal to the Court of Appeal and at the subsequent retrial. The claimant (“S”) initially claimed for breach of contract, wrongful interference with goods and negligence. At first instance HS successfully defended the claims, in particular it was held they were not vicariously liable for the acts of their contractors. S’s appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge had failed to fully determine his claim in negligence, on the issue of notice. The matter was sent back for retrial on this issue only. At the retrial in 2014 Daniella again successfully represented HS and S’s claim was dismissed.
Application for possession of a scrapyard and injunction to prevent defendant from entering or remaining on the land.
Assessment of damages for wrongful interference with goods (large quantities of silver) following judgment in default against the defendant.
Daniella has been recognised as a leading junior in employment law in the Legal 500. She undertakes work in all areas of employment law and has particular expertise in:
Daniella’s practice involves an even spread of both claimant and respondent work. She is also a regular speaker at chambers’ seminars and contributes to our quarterly newsletters.
Daniella represented the respondent council (H) in this appeal. The claimant (P) challenged the Employment Tribunal’s decision that her ET1 claim form did not include claims of discrimination and victimisation. The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed that part of the appeal. P challenged a costs order made against her, which was quashed.
Daniella represented the claimant company (V) in an application for an injunction restraining the defendant (LF), a former employee, from disclosing confidential information to third parties. Ultimately the defendant gave the necessary undertakings and was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs.
Daniella represented the Respondent to an application for a civil restraint order. This case and its predecessor established that the High Court had jurisdiction to make a civil restraint order that would extend to proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, and that tribunals should expressly state when they found a claim or application to be totally without merit.
Daniella represents the respondent in this discrimination claim complicated by the claimant’s reliance upon the protected characteristic of “perceived disability”. There is no binding authority confirming the applicability of the Equality Act 2010 or the appropriate test to apply in such a case.
At a preliminary hearing the claimant sought a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) to determine these issues in compliance with the Equality Framework Directive. Daniella successfully opposed this and obtained orders requiring the claimant to pay a deposit in order to continue with his claims on the basis that they had little or no prospects of success.
Daniella represented the Appellant in an appeal against the dismissal of his claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The appeal was based upon several grounds including that the ET had failed to apply the reversed burden of proof in his discrimination claim and that this error tainted the ET’s decision on his unfair dismissal claim.
Daniella represented the respondent in the claimant’s appeal against a costs order made against him when he withdrew his claim on the first day of trial.