Naomi has a thriving employment practice, acting for claimants and respondents/defendants in the Employment Tribunal, EAT, County Court and High Court. She is consistently ranked in the Legal 500 and Chambers UK directories for Employment law, and is described as ‘an incredibly capable, strong, and diligent barrister’.
Recent experience includes:
Overlapping with her education law practice, Naomi has particular expertise of employment disputes in the education sector, including:
Outside of the employment sphere, Naomi also accepts instructions in other areas of equality law, and has advised and acted in county court discrimination claims brought against exam providers, transport companies, supermarkets, and government departments.
In group litigation, Naomi has represented one of 45 Respondents in a claim relating to discrimination in recruitment, and one of 25 Respondents in a claim brought by 127 Claimants in relation to the ‘no jab no job’ policy for care homes during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Naomi’s background in university teaching means she ably suited to providing training in a range of areas of employment law.
Prior to pupillage, Naomi worked as a judicial assistant in the Court of Appeal, where she worked on a number of ground-breaking employment cases, in areas including National Minimum Wage, whistleblowing, territorial jurisdiction, variation of contract and harassment.
Naomi Webber and Alex Leonhardt analyse the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109, an important decision which explains how direct discrimination interrelates with the right to hold and manifest religious and philosophical beliefs in the workplace.
Alex and Naomi draw out key points from the judgment and explain how it can be applied in future cases.
Naomi Webber reviews the case of Masiero & others v Barchester Healthcare PLC [2024] EAT 112, which highlights that reasonable business requirement to change terms of employment and reasonable reasons to refuse them are not mutually exclusive.
Naomi also outlines the correct approach to be taken where human rights are engaged and part of the relevant factors to be considered in the context of dismissals.
Naomi Webber reviews Mr Martin Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency [2024] EAT 71, in which the EAT found that a volunteer was a worker, in circumstances where he received remuneration for his activities as a coastal rescue officer.
The case confirms that ‘volunteer’ is not a term of art (or law), and each relationship will have to be considered on its own facts.
Naomi Webber reviews the changes to the annual leave entitlement and holiday pay of part-year and irregular hours workers, as The Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023 and the Holiday pay and entitlement reforms came into force on 1 January 2024.
Naomi Webber considers the first case relating to Covid-19 and s.100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to reach the Court of Appeal, Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting [2022]. The case determines the employers liability in relation to serious and imminent danger claims from an employee during the pandemic.
The counsel team for Mrs Brazel in the much publicised Harpur Trust v Brazel case, Mathew Gullick KC, Lachlan Wilson and Naomi Webber reflect on the recent Government consultation paper looking at holiday pay for part-year workers.
Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville [2022] EWCA Civ 229
Naomi Webber analyses the Court of Appeal's judgment in Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville [2022] EWCA Civ 229, which provides a useful clarification when assessing the worker status of an individual who provides work under an overarching or other service level agreement, and confirms that the concept of a ‘limb (b) worker’ is broader than may have previously been thought.
Naomi Webber analyses R (the Motherhood Plan & Anor) v Her Majesty's Treasury [2021] EWCA Civ 1703, 'in which the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by women who were disadvantaged by the Self Income Support Scheme. It did demonstrate, however, that care must be taken not to discriminate when creating schemes that rely on factors which may be affected by periods of maternity (and other) leave.
Naomi Webber reviews R (Cornerstone) v Ofsted [2021] EWCA Civ 1390, a case considering whether a requirement for foster parents to be in heterosexual marriages on religious grounds was discriminatory.
Naomi Webber reviews Steer v Stormsure Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 887, a case which examines whether the lack of provision for interim relief in discrimination and victimisation claims under the Equality Act does not breach ECHR rules.
Naomi Webber examines the Court of Appeal's decision in National Union of Professional Foster Carers v The Certification Officer [2021] EWCA Civ 548, the latest in a number of decisions to look at the unique position of foster carers, this time considering the ability to form trade unions, under Article 11 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) (the right to freedom of association).
R (On the application of Motherhood Plan & Anor) v HM Treasury & Anor [2021] EWHC 309 (Admin)
Naomi Webber analyses the case of R (On the application of Motherhood Plan & Anor) v HM Treasury & Anor [2021] EWHC 309 (Admin). A case concerning direct discrimination.
Naomi Webber analyses Steer v Stormsure Ltd UKEAT/0216/20/AT, a case which could well add another tool in the armoury for claimants bringing in claims for discriminatory dismissals.
Disability Discrimination in the Employment Tribunal: lessons for education lawyers
Sarah Bowen and Naomi Webber consider two recent appellate decisions (Khorochilova v Euro Rep Limited UKEAT/0266/19/DA and Robinson v DWP [2020] EWCA Civ 859) in respect of the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) in relation to the protected characteristic of disability. Whilst the facts of the cases relate to the employment sector, the same definition of disability applies in the context of education. Accordingly, their principles are directly relevant and applicable to disability discrimination claims in education.
Employment law barrister, Naomi Webber analyses the case of Varnish v British Cycling.
3PB's employment law barrister Naomi Webber reviews the case of Gould v St Johns Downshire UKEAT/0002/20/BA.
Be wary of the ‘last straw’: Williams v Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School UKEAT/0108/19/LA
Is the law of vicarious liability still ‘on the move’? Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13
The 126 claimants in this case were all employees of Barclays Bank who, at the start of their employment between the late 1960s and early 1980s, were required to undergo a medical examination. Examinations were carried out by Dr Bates (now deceased), a general practitioner who was not an employee of the Bank but engaged as an independent contractor to provide this service, and did so at his home. The Claimants alleged that they were sexually assaulted by Dr Bates while undergoing this examination and brought a group action against the Bank for compensation. A preliminary issue was whether Barclays could be vicariously liable for his actions.
At first instance, the High Court found that Barclays had been vicariously liable. The Court of Appeal agreed, applying the five-part test in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56, and Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.
Supreme Court Decision (Lady Hale) - the key issue was whether the relationship between Dr Bates and Barclays was ‘akin to employment’. The Supreme Court held unanimously that it was not.
EAT Case Summaries by Daniel Brown and Naomi Webber.
Diplomatic immunity and leapfrog: Naomi Webber analyses Basfar v Wong UKEAT/0223/19/BA
Ethical veganism: a philosophical belief. Naomi Webber analyses Casamitjana v The League Against Cruel Sports (ET case no. 3331129/2018).
Is a belief in the moral importance of copyright a 'philosophical belief'? Naomi Webber analyses Gray v Mulberry [2019] EWCA Civ 1720
Shared parental leave – Discrimination against men? Naomi Webber analyses Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd, Chief Constable of Leicestershire v Hextall [2019] EWCA Civ 900
"A fantastic counsel, she is knowledgeable and experienced."
Chambers UK 2025/Employment/South Eastern Bar
Strengths: "Naomi Webber's relatively junior call belies an incredibly capable, strong and diligent advocate."
"Naomi is able to get to the core of the issues involved in complex cases to achieve the desired result."
Chambers UK 2024/Employment/South Eastern Bar
Strengths: “Naomi was really commercial with what we needed and did it quickly, which was a large part of what allowed us to attack and ultimately settle.”
Chambers UK 2023/Employment/South Eastern Bar
Naomi Webber is ranked as a Rising Start in the Legal 500 2025/Employment/South Eastern Circuit
'Naomi has the ability to explain fairly technical aspects of employment law clearly, thoroughly and without unnecessary jargon.'
Legal 500 2024/Employment/Rising stars/South Eastern Circuit
‘Naomi is excellent – she is extremely thorough and capable. She is highly approachable and has excellent attention to detail.'
Rising star Naomi Webber is ‘an incredibly capable, strong, and diligent barrister’ and successfully represented an employer in direct and indirect sex discrimination claims relating to breastfeeding and childcare
Legal 500 2023/Employment/Rising stars/South Eastern Circuit
Naomi Webber edits the 12th edition of our education law newsletter featuring analysis from our barristers Alice de Coverley, Ben Amunwa, Olivia McGonigle, Naomi Webber and Alex Leonhardt. We look back at our team's 2nd education law conference in February and highlight recent involvement of our barristers in important cases and upcoming events.
Continue readingWelcome to our February Employment Law newsletter, edited by Michael Smith, featuring analysis from Michael, Daniel Brown, Jo Laxton, Naomi Webber and Alex Leonhardt on the following cases:
- Jones v SoS for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568
- Douglas v North Lanarkshire [2024] EAT 194
- Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109
- Eddie Stobbart Limited v Graham [2025] EAT 14
3PB’s employment law team is celebrating another strong set of results in Chambers and Partners’ 2025 edition published today, with a total of 18 individual rankings for 16 of our employment barristers in London, Western, South Eastern and the Midlands Circuits While clients’ comments on our individual barristers once again testify to their dedication and excellence, our clerking team, led by Russell Porter, also attracts much praise and is seen as 'absolutely brilliant and going...
Continue reading3PB barristers and its Employment and Discrimination team have cause for celebration as they are confirmed as a top tier team in the Western and South Eastern Circuits in the latest Legal 500 edition. Praised by clients as “‘an excellent set’ with an employment team ‘packed full of top-tier barristers’ and an excellent track record for advising across the full spectrum of employment law matters”, 3PB is regarded as “‘a chambers with a wide skill...
Continue reading
