Craig Rajgopaul KC

Craig was instructed by the Respondent in a highly sensitive disability discrimination claim, where the Claimant has ASD and was bringing a raft of different claims, from alleged discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, through harassment and victimisation, to allegedly automatically unfair dismissal for raising health and safety concerns. Following robust pleadings and successful navigation of a wide range of interlocutory issues, the claim settled on very favourable terms for the Respondent shortly before trial.

Craig is instructed by the Respondent in defending the Claimant’s claims of (amongst other things) alleged whistleblowing detriment and discrimination. The Claimant brought an application in the Tribunal for interim relief, which Craig successfully resisted. The lengthy trial is listed in 2025.

Craig is instructed by the Respondent law firm resisting claims by a (now) former senior member: (i) of disability discrimination (in the Tribunal); and (ii) alleging breach of the LLP agreement (litigated in the High Court). Involving sensitive mental health issues, and complex diagnostic and forensic medical issues, a two-day PH on disability is listed in late 2024, with the trial to take place in 2025.

Craig acted for a large financial institution resisting claims of alleged disability discrimination, religion or belief discrimination (relating to alleged ethical veganism) and race discrimination. Following Craig’s cross-examination, the (professionally represented) Claimant was found not to be disabled by reason of either asthma or oral allergy syndrome, as a result of which the Claimant withdrew all her claims.

Acted for the Respondent bank defending claims of whistleblowing and discrimination.  Craig worked with his solicitors to produce a robust Grounds of Resistance, and has obtained: (i) withdrawal of the entirety of the discrimination claims (in the face of an application for strike out); and (ii) a deposit order in relation to one of the whistleblowing claims.  The claim settled on favourable terms shortly before the two week trial.

Craig is acting for the former CEO of Imagination Technologies in his whistleblowing claim in relation to his high profile dismissal – widely reported in the press - which followed allegations he made relating to national security concerns about a proposed boardroom coup by appointees of the Chinese Government.  The Respondents have instructed a Silk.  Craig has successfully resisted before the Tribunal an attempt by the Respondents to argue that various communications were privileged from disclosure.  The four week trial due to commence in September 2022 was bumped just before trial due to a last minute change in position by the Taking of Evidence Unit as to whether one named Respondent could give evidence from Hong Kong: it has been re-listed for 2024.

Acting for a senior trader bringing whistleblowing claims (arising out of protected disclosures relating to bribes) during his employment and leading up to its termination.  The Respondent instructed a Silk. The case was heard over 6 weeks in September and October 2021.  Craig cross-examined 28 witnesses.  The case was widely reported in the press and the written judgment (received in October 2022) ran to more than 230 pages. 

Instructed by a major FTSE 100 company in defending claims of wrongful dismissal in the High Court and unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal involving the dismissal of some of the most senior individuals in the business relating to serious accounting irregularities with a raft of interlinking claims being brought in the High Court by shareholders and criminal proceedings by the Serious Fraud Office.  Amongst other things Craig, led by Stuart Ritchie KC, represented Tesco before the EAT (UKEAT/0068/20/AT) and succeeded in a novel argument relating to “procedural irregularity” regarding the ET’s refusal to consolidate two claims.

Acting for a partner in a major international law firm bringing claims of sexual orientation and disability discrimination against the Firm.  Following hard-fought interlocutory battles, the case settled on confidential terms that Craig’s client was very happy with shortly before the Hearing.

Acted for the Claimant member of the LLP bringing race discrimination claims against the Firm relating to her expulsion. The Respondent instructed a Silk. The claim settled shortly before trial on favourable terms.

Craig acted for the successful Claimant in respect of his disability discrimination claim in a multi-week hearing that stretched over two years.  Following Craig’s cross-examination, the Respondents were found to have falsified a document for the purposes of concealing their discrimination.  The Respondents instructed a Silk to appeal to the EAT, where Craig successfully resisted the appeal, and the EAT upheld the finding of the creation of a fraudulent document – (EA-2019-000762-AT; [2021] 9 WLUK 257).  The Respondents were also refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Craig acted for the Respondent in this multi-day Employment Tribunal discrimination claim against a Silk. The Claimant withdrew his claim mid-trial just before Craig’s cross-examination started, and Craig was subsequently instructed in relation to a successful High Court application for injunctive relief against the employee to obtain the return of confidential information.

Acted for the Respondent firm of solicitors in relation to the significant issue of the extent to which an LLP member can claim post-termination losses through a whistleblowing claim when they have purported to accept a repudiatory breach of contract (which was ineffective as a matter of law). The Court of Appeal’s judgment (with important clarification as to the causation test for whistleblowing claims) is reported at [2018] I.C.R. 1092 and [2018] I.R.L.R. 1042.

Acted (against a Silk) for the Claimant, a very senior banker, in his claim alleging breach of FCA obligations. Craig acted throughout (drafting the pleadings, advising and appearing at a hearing on various interlocutory matters, working on the witness statement and assisting with the negotiation of settlement). The claim settled for a seven figure sum just before the first day of the 10-day hearing.

Acted for the successful inter-dealer broker respondent resisting a claim (said to be worth considerably more than £1million) by two former employees who alleged that they had been automatically unfairly dismissed for blowing the whistle.

Acting for the Claimant (a former director of the Respondent) in a high value disability discrimination claim. The claim is currently part-heard, with evidence due to finish at the end of December 2017, and submissions completed in January 2018.

Acted (against a Silk) for the Claimant in respect of a 15-day whistleblowing and victimisation claim involving allegations of breach of FCA obligations. Craig acted throughout (drafting the pleadings, and advising on various interlocutory matters). The claim settled on the morning of the first day of trial.

Acted (against a Silk) for the Claimant in a 15-day sex and pregnancy discrimination claim. The claim settled on day 10, after some of the Respondent’s witnesses had admitted under Craig’s cross-examination that their actions had been sexist.

Acted (against a Silk) for the successful Respondent (a higher education institution) in a multi-day sex and age discrimination claim. Following Craig’s cross-examination, the Claimant was found by the Tribunal not to have been telling the truth in many respects.

Acted for the successful Appellant in an unusual bias appeal where the EAT overturned the ET Judge’s findings (on disability) because of apparent bias. Lewis J described Craig’s “persuasive submissions” in his judgment.

Acted for the successful Appellant in an appeal against a Tribunal’s decision where the Tribunal was – unusually – found to have failed to identify the relevant principles of law, and impermissibly to have substituted its own opinion for that of the employer.

Acted (against a new Silk) for the Claimant in a 10-day race and dis- ability discrimination and whistleblowing claim against the Metropolitan police. The case involved crossexamination of a number of senior police officers and arguments about the correct approach to the doctrine of judicial immunity. 

Acted for the (successful) Respondent in this multi-day disability discrimination PHR, focussing on the correct approach to the meaning of disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, cross-examination of a vulnerable witness and submissions as to the weight to be given to expert and other medical evidence.

Acted for the successful Claimant in a 10 day indirect sex discrimination, victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal claim. Craig cross-examined 11 witnesses whose evidence was found (inter alia) to be “evasive”, “unhelpful” and “contrived”.

Multi-day disability discrimination remedies hearing (led by Clive Freedman QC) where the Claimant claimed close to £1 million, and there were complex issues of causation (with three expert witnesses) and potential double-recover, including settling an appeal to the EAT in relation to the issue of apportionment of losses.

Five day race discrimination, unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions claim, settled on confidential terms on day three because, in the Claimant’s words, Craig had “destroyed” his case in cross-examination.

Acted for the Respondent. HHJ Peter Clark described Craig’s skeleton argument and submissions as “excellent”, and praised his forensic skills as an advocate.

Blockbuster team move speedy trial, in which Craig’s reinsurance broker clients (Howden) took a team of 38 individuals across Europe from one of its main rivals, Guy Carpenter. The case threw up a raft of novel issues, including: (i) complex foreign law and jurisdiction disputes; (ii) an admission by Craig’s clients that they had entered into an unlawful means conspiracy, with consequential disputes as to the nature and extent of any injunctive relief to which the Claimants were entitled; and (iii) management of a claim with more than 50 witnesses and a trial bundle running to more than 100,000 pages and a six-week speedy trial. The case was widely reported in the insurance press – when settlement was reached on the first day of trial, the insurance press suggested that it was the highest settlement ever paid in a team move claim (see e.g. https://www.insuranceinsider.com/article/2cb836idr4w23bv88iha8/brokers-section/howden-guy-carp-reina-poaching-settlement-exceeds-50mn).[CR1]

[CR1]Can this just be a short hyper-link rather than the full link?

In the face of an employee who appeared to have taken highly confidential information, deleted information and taken steps to start a competitor business, Craig obtained injunctive relief for the claimant recruitment consultant firm to: (i) protect and obtain the return of its highly confidential information; (ii) obtain information concerning the whereabouts of that confidential information; and (iii) compel compliance with post termination restrictive covenants in the defendant's contract of employment. The claim settled prior to the speedy trial of the issues.

Craig successfully having obtained interim injunctive relief enforcing covenants and on a springboard basis, this was an 18 day team move trial that spanned over three months with complex liability and quantum issues (including expert evidence) with three sets of Defendant Counsel, a huge volume of paperwork and electronic trial bundles. Craig was led by Gavin Mansfield QC.

Multi-day speedy trial in the High Court between two inter-dealer brokers, focusing on the enforceability of post-termination non-compete and non-deal covenants, and springboard relief.  The case is regularly cited in subsequent authorities.

20-day High Court team move trial relating to the insurance-industry involving complex (and at times novel) legal arguments relating to the application/appropriateness of springboard injunctive relief, pre- and post-termination confidentiality obligations, and the scope of the implied duty of fidelity. The leading authority on the principles applicable to the grant of springboard relief.

Acted (as a solicitor) for BGC and its President in this 45 day liability trial in the High Court arising out of a team move between rival inter-dealer brokers, including allegations of misuse of confidential information, breaches of court orders, inducing breach of contract and conspiracy. Also acted on the appeal to the Court of Appeal. The case continues to be cited for a wide variety of propositions in almost every team move claim that is litigated.

Acting for a partner in a law firm who is fighting expulsion from the partnership, including: (i) issues relating to the proper construction of the LLP Agreement, the legal effect of decisions taken by the firm in apparent breach of that Agreement, and the civil court remedies available in respect of the same; and (ii) an age discrimination and victimisation claim brought in the Employment Tribunal.  

Acting for a partner in a law firm accused of professional misconduct and threatened with expulsion from the partnership and reporting to the SRA.  Craig worked with his client and instructing solicitors to produce robust submissions, and pre-action correspondence threatening injunctions relating to breaches by the Firm of the LLP Agreement, following which a mutually agreeable settlement was reached.

Acting for a partner in an international services firm in respect of a claim brought against him to enforce post-termination restrictions contained in the LLP Agreement (with a significant international element, and claims brought against various different individuals in different jurisdictions).  Following a number of interlocutory skirmishes, the claim settled very shortly before trial commenced.

Acting for a partner in a major international law firm bringing claims of sexual orientation and disability discrimination against the Firm.  Following hard-fought interlocutory battles, the case settled on confidential terms that Craig’s client was very happy with shortly before the Hearing.

Acted for the Claimant member of the LLP bringing race discrimination claims against the Firm relating to her expulsion. The Respondent instructed a Silk. The claim settled shortly before trial on favourable terms.

Acted for the Respondent firm of solicitors in relation to the significant issue of the extent to which an LLP member can claim post-termination losses through a whistleblowing claim when they have purported to accept a repudiatory breach of contract (which was ineffective as a matter of law). The Court of Appeal’s judgment (with important clarification as to the causation test for whistleblowing claims) is reported at [2018] I.C.R. 1092 and [2018] I.R.L.R. 1042.

Acted for a senior member of an LLP who had very serious allegations of sexual misconduct made against him following the #metoo movement.  With careful forensic work and investigation, the taking of witness statements and detailed written submissions to the LLP, Craig assisted his client in persuading the LLP that all of the most serious allegations were unjustified, and Craig’s client ultimately retained his position as a member of the LLP and his seven-figure annual remuneration.

Instructed by a well-known law firm to investigate allegations that a senior partner had bullied and harassed a number of associates, and to produce a report making findings and appropriate recommendations.

Instructed to investigate allegations of pregnancy discrimination and harassment brought by a senior female employee, and to produce a report making findings and recommendations.

Conducted an appeal against dismissal (involving allegations of disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment) including recommending the appropriate outcome to the employer.

Conducted an investigation into allegations of bullying, harassment and victimisation made by two different sets of employees against each other making findings and appropriate recommendations.