Harini Iyengar

Harini Iyengar first branched out into Data Protection and Information law as a senior junior barrister four years ago.  Bringing a wealth of wide-ranging public and regulatory law experience and expertise to her Data Protection and Information practice, Harini quickly developed her excellent reputation.  Harini regularly advises and represents educational institutions, public bodies, the Information Commissioner, and individuals in technically-complex, high-value and high-profile matters.

She is now ranked as a leading practitioner in Chambers & Partners directory, where her Information clients report, “Harini Iyengar is extremely intelligent and very user-friendly, making it a pleasure to work with her,” and, “She has very broad and deep knowledge and is extremely good at presenting complex issues in a clear way. It’s always a pleasure to work with her.”

Appeal against Monetary Penalty Notice concerning Health Data
Harini was instructed by the Information Commissioner to defend an appeal against a monetary penalty notice for £1,350,000 concerning a breach of GDPR rules on health data, alongside PECR enforcement proceedings.

Data Breach by Children’s Social Services Department
Harini Iyengar advised a local authority on potential claims under the Data Protection Act 2018, General Data Protection Regulation, and various torts, arising from data breaches by a children’s social services department.

Alumni Association
Harini advised the alumni club of a school on a range of data protection problems.

Enforcement Proceedings by the Information Commissioner
Harini Iyengar has advised the Information Commissioner on several high-value investigations leading to enforcement proceedings under the Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003.

Killock v Information Commissioner [2021] UKUT 299 (AAC), [2022] 1 WLR 2241
Harini Iyengar successfully represented in the Information Commissioner in an application by a data subject for a remedy under the Data Protection Act 2018, in which the Upper Tribunal held that s.166 was limited to procedural failings by the Information Commissioner.

Maurizi, Zhang, Lucas, Home Office and Others v Information Commissioner, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Home Office and Lucas
Harini Iyengar successfully represented the Information Commissioner in Upper Tribunal test cases which questioned the extra-territorial scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the jurisdiction of UK courts and tribunals.

Williams v Information Commissioner
Harini successfully represented the Information Commissioner in a case concerning the applicability of the Civil Procedure Rules in the First-tier Tribunal (Information) concerning the basis on which disclosure is made between parties to litigation and whether a litigant in person may share documents which have been disclosed in the course of proceedings on a website for the purpose of seeking legal advice.

Freedom of Information
Harini has advised on, drafted pleadings and appeared at numerous First-tier Tribunal Information Rights and Upper Tribunal hearings concerning freedom of information.

Harini Iyengar has been ranked by directories as a leading practitioner of Education law for the last decade.

Harini is instructed by Russell Group universities, independent schools, academies and local education authorities, and has also acted for individual governors, senior academics, teachers and students.  She covers the whole breadth from High Court judicial reviews of the OIA’s decisions or appeals against regulatory decisions, Employment Appeal Tribunal cases involving schools or universities, to appearances in the First-tier Tribunal Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.  From time to time, Harini still receives instructions to appear in the County Court, in cases concerning discrimination in the provision of educational services, where the institution’s values-based concerns outweigh the financial value of the claim.

Harini has also undertaken significant independent investigations for universities (see Independent Investigations menu for details) and brings insights from her own experience of being an Independent Governor at a university for six years.

UNIVERSITIES

Investigation by Office of the Independent Adjudicator
Harini is currently advising a higher education provider in connection with a complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator by a student who was expelled following disciplinary findings of sexual misconduct.

Nabi v University of Birmingham
Representing the University of Birmingham, Harini successfully applied to strike out claims of race discrimination brought by a PhD student who had been required to withdraw following disciplinary findings against him for misconduct towards academic staff and fellow students.

Advice on Stalking
Harini Iyengar advised a university on a difficult situation in which a student was stalking and harassing a staff member.

Student v University and Local Authority
Harini represented a university in a complex case in which a social work student with learning difficulties, whose work placement was terminated for misconduct, and who was subjected to Fitness to Practice proceedings, sued both the university and the local authority which hosted the work placement.

Teaching Excellent Framework
Harini advised a university on a potential judicial review concerning the Teaching Excellence Framework.

Anger-Kraavi v University of Cambridge
Harini represented a senior woman academic bringing victimisation claims against the university for breaching a settlement agreement compromising claims of equal pay, sexual harassment, unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.

Student v Russell Group University
Harini advised and drafted an appeal for a student challenging their border-line degree result.

SCHOOLS

Disability Discrimination Case in First-tier Tribunal
Harini currently represents an independent school which is defending claims of disability discrimination arising out of an incident of misconduct with a knife on school premises by a pupil who was experiencing a mental health crisis.

Single-sex, mixed-sex and gender-fluid toilets
Harini Iyengar advised a school governing body on single-sex, mixed-sex and gender-fluid toilets and associated Equality Act 2010 and governance issues.

Teaching Regulation Authority v Male School Teacher
Harini advised a male school teacher in a sensitive professional disciplinary case, in which he had been accused of sexual abuse of his own children, the Police had decided not to prosecute but to keep the allegation on file, and his professional regulator commenced disciplinary proceedings.

University Hearing on Academic Misconduct
Harini sat as Legal Adviser to a university disciplinary panel hearing complex allegations of academic misconduct by way of dishonest scientific research methodology and breach of data protection protocols, at which the PhD student was represented by a KC and live expert evidence on computing issues was heard.

School Exclusion Independent Review Panel
Harini successfully persuaded an Independent Review Panel to remit a decision concerning the exclusion from a residential school of a pre-teen girl for “sexting” and sexual misbehaviour, who had been groomed by a third party online.

Lancaster v Governing Body of Whitmore High School and Vale of Glamorgan Council
Harini successfully defended a school against complex high-value claims of whistleblowing and detriment because of trade union activities from a teacher who had been investigated for allegations of mistreating children.

Pollard v Aquinas Church of England Education Trust
Harini Iyengar successfully represented a school resisting complex claims of religion or belief discrimination, whistleblowing and unfair dismissal by a teacher.

Child v Governing Body
Harini advised a school governing body facing a disability discrimination claim concerning a child with a complex yet undiagnosed condition, who had been repeatedly temporarily excluded.

Child v Local Authority
Harini successfully represented a local authority in a complicated special educational needs tribunal case concerning a child with multiple special needs, including autistic spectrum condition, where there was a dispute between expert witnesses about Applied Behavioural Analysis.

Child v Local Authority
Harini advised a local authority on a difficult dispute concerning a child with special educational needs which also raised complex issues associated with proceedings in the Court of Protection and the Administrative Court.

Child v Local Authority
Harini represented a local authority before the First-tier Tribunal where the expert witnesses disagreed whether a child over 18 with a visual impairment should attend a specialist residential school or should enter the workforce after completing a course at a further education college.

Harini acts for both employers and employees, in cases of whistleblowing, restrictive covenants, TUPE, contractual disputes, equal pay, data protection, confidential information, complex disciplinary and grievance matters, bullying and harassment, parental rights, working time, trade unions, redundancy exercises and, of course, dismissal.

Her employer clients include City financial institutions, manufacturing and IT businesses, law firms, public bodies, universities, retail giants, charities, health authorities, local councils, and small businesses. She represents workers from all walks of life from elite professionals through to groups of low-paid workers bringing multiple claims.

WHISTLEBLOWING

Beatt v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 401
Harini successfully represented Dr Beatt in the Court of Appeal in a long-running and widely reported NHS whistleblowing dispute.

Senior Banker v Major Investment Bank
Harini advised a senior banker bringing very high value claims of whistleblowing, disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unlawful deduction from wages.

Teacher v Further Education College
Harini advised a teacher bringing whistleblowing claims against a further education college, with complicated facts including a complex disciplinary matter.

WORKING TIME

Commission-Paid Employees v Global Business
Harini represented a global business in a complex dispute which included claims of breaches of the Working Time Regulations, Working Time Directive and the rules on holiday pay and commission, in addition to whistleblowing, sex discrimination, harassment, victimisation and pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims.

TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS

Townend v Unite the Union
Harini succcessfully represented a trade union in a case raising complex issues of TUPE, employment status, and employer’s counterclaims, in addition to critical factual disputes.

Dismissal contrary to TUPE Protections
Harini represented a client in a dispute concerning TUPE and service provision change.

TRADE UNIONS

Teacher v Local Authority and School
Harini Iyengar represented a local authority and school in a case involving claims that a teacher had been subjected to unlawful detriments because of trade union activities.

UNFAIR DISMISSAL AND DISCIPLINARY ISSUES

Peak v South Buckinghamshire County Council
Harini successfully defended a county council facing a sensitive claim of unfair dismissal brought by a senior officer who had been dismissed for serious sexual misconduct towards a vulnerable service user.

Legal Advisor to Disciplinary Panel
Harini acted as the legal advisor to a disciplinary panel of a public body considering very sensitive allegations of serious misconduct against a senior officer.

CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES INCLUDING BONUS, PENSIONS, STRIKES AND LIVING WAGE

Cook v Gentoo Group Ltd
[2023] EAT 12, [2023] IRLR 357
Harini drafted appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in regard to issues of pension entitlement, age discrimination, and the calculation of compensatory awards.

National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage
Harini advised a local authority in writing on a series of difficult questions involving the implementation of the National Living Wage, its interaction with the National Minimum Wage, and how payscales would be affected.

Senior Underwriter v Insurance Business
Harini drafted a High Court claim for a senior underwriter concerning unpaid bonus.

DISCRIMINATION
Please see the Equality and Discrimination section.

Harini Iyengar has extensive experience advising and representing her clients in cases of discrimination on each of the protected grounds under the Equality Act 2010, including employment claims, claims concerning the provision of services, equality impact assessments, the public sector equality duty, and governmance issues.

EQUAL PAY

Project and Export Financier v Major Investment Bank
Harini Iyengar advised and drafted a very high-value claim for a woman financier including claims for like work and work of equal value, and a novel claim under s 71 of the Equality Act 2010.

Written Opinion for Public Authority: costs in civil courts
Harini advised a public authority facing mass equal pay claims in the civil courts on novel issues of costs in equal pay claims.

Special Interests in Equal Pay and Gender Pay Gap Reporting
Harini Iyengar is the sole author of “A Practical Guide to the Law of Gender Pay Gap Reporting” (Law Brief Publishing, 2019) and contributed a chapter on Equal Pay to “Women’s Legal Landmarks” (Hart Publishing, 2018). She presented a paper on Equal Pay as part of the Women’s Budget Group delegation to the International Association for Feminist Economics annual conference.

AGE DISCRIMINATION

Cook v Gentoo Group Ltd
[2023] EAT 12, [2023] IRLR 357
Harini represented an employee in an age discrimination dispute, raising novel legal issues concerning pension entitlement.

B v Local Authority
Harini represented a client in a dispute over discrimination in the context of redundancy.

DISABILITY

Employee v School
Harini Iyengar advised an employee on the prospects of success of an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning disability-related discrimination and proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.

Burke v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust
Harini Iyengar defended an NHS Foundation Trust facing complex disability discrimination claims from a current and long-term employee, who had a very unusual and complicated mental health condition, whose vulnerabilities also necessitated reasonable adjustments to be made in the Tribunal to the method of cross examination. Harini has been trained to work with vulnerable witnesses.

Dean v Abercrombie & Fitch
Harini Iyengar successfully represented a young woman with prosthetic arm who sued clothing store Abercrombie & Fitch for direct disability discrimination, harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

GENDER REASSIGNMENT

Single-sex, mixed-sex and gender-fluid toilets
Harini Iyengar advised a school governing body on single-sex, mixed-sex and gender-fluid toilets and associated Equality Act 2010 and governance issues.

Gender Recognition Act 2004
Harini Iyengar was a member of both Employment Lawyers’ Association Working Groups which formally responded to the Government’s two consultations on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

PREGNANCY AND MATERNITY

Commission-Paid Employees v Global Business
Harini represented a global business in a complex dispute which included claims of breaches of the Working Time Regulations, Working Time Directive and the rules on holiday pay and commission, in addition to whistleblowing, sex discrimination, harassment, victimisation and pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims.

Stokes v Smart Education Ltd
Harini Iyengar successfully defended a teacher recruitment business against claims of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, pregnancy harassment, unfair dismissal and failure to pay sick pay.

Senior Partner v Financial Services LLP
Harini Iyengar advised on a complicated dispute involving complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, victimsation and expulsion from the partnership.

Banker v Investment Bank
Harini Iyengar represented a female banker in a high-value claim involving maternity, bonus and sex discrimination disputes.

RACE DISCRIMINATION

Account Manager v Information Sector Business
Harini Iyengar represented information sector business facing claim of direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal from an account manager.

Senior University Academic v Well-Known University
Harini Iyengar represented renowned senior university academic bringing very high value claims of sex, race and disability discrimination against a well-known university and named professors

RELIGION OR BELIEF

Christian Charity
Harini Iyengar advised a Christian charity on the lawfulness of a requirement in a job specification to be a practising Christian.

Domestic Migrant Worker v Employer
Harini Iyengar represented a domestic migrant worker bringing a claim of harassment on ground of religion and sex through the imposition of an unwelcome requirement on her to wear a hijab.

SEX

Annals v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Harini Iyengar successfully defended the Met Police in an unusual claim of sex discrimination brought by a male firearms officer who had been refused a career break.

Bouabdillah v Commerzbank AG [2013] EqLR 651
Harini Iyengar successfully represented the claimant banker who brought a widely-reported claim of victimisation.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Kistruck v Battersea Dogs’ Home
Harini Iyengar successfully represented an animal charity defending a claim that a lesbian junior employee had been sexually harassed at work by her lesbian boss, following the break-up of their former romantic relationship.

DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROVISION OF EDUCATION OR SERVICES

Disabled Medical Student v Russell Group University
Harini Iyengar successfully represented a disabled medical student at an unusual appeal to the Appeal Committee of a Russell Group University in which the challenge was based on the student’s rights to receive educational services under the Equality Act 2010.

Disabled Student v College (County Court)
Harini Iyengar advised a disabled student with claims of disability discrimination in provision of services by college and direct discrimination through stereotyping.

Chambers & Partners Directory 2024 recommends Harini Iyengar as a barrister with specialism in conducting Independent Investigations, saying, “Harini Iyengar is an established barrister who is well versed in handling complex and sensitive investigations, particularly those relating to bullying and harassment. Her experience in this area covers a variety of settings including local authorities, schools and businesses.”

Harini has a busy – and generally confidential – practice as an Independent Investigator.  She has investigated for a range of prestigious companies and institutions.  Harini has expertise in complicated fact-based as well as legally-complex investigations, for example, investigations involving concerns raised by and against multiple individuals, vulnerable witnesses with protected characteristics or health conditions, professional codes of conduct, and data protection issues.  She brings a balance of pragmatism and sensitivity.  Her ability to establish a good rapport with witnesses is valued by clients.

Major Investigation for Public Body
Harini conducted a major double grievance investigation for a public body into allegations of racist bullying by a senior officer, interviewing over 20 witnesses, considering thousands of pages of documentary evidence and writing a report of nearly 300 pages.

Major Investigation for University
Harini investigated a vulnerable male student’s complaint of harassment and bullying through a vulnerable female student spreading allegedly false rumours about him, after a prior investigation by a different investigator into her complaints of alleged sexual assault by him had been found not proven.  Harini interviewed ten witnesses and produced a 76-page report.

Urgent Investigation into Public Body
Harini conducted an urgent investigation for a public body into allegations of racist remarks and conduct by the Head of Equalities towards a Black and a White colleague, who had each raised concerned over the organisation’s anti-racism training plans.

Independent Review Panel on Race Equality at Cardiff University
Harini was instructed as a member of the Independent Review Panel set up by Cardiff University Medical School to examine race equality following the disciplining of 31 medical students after their performance in a student revue which included “blackface” and other offensive aspects. The Panel considered extensive documentary evidence and spent two days hearing witness evidence. All thirteen recommendations were publicly accepted by Cardiff University.

Market-sensitive Allegations at Finance Business
Harini Iyengar conducted an independent investigation into market-sensitive allegations of misconduct and inappropriate behaviour in a high-profile finance business, which arose out of a clash between two very senior personalities, who each raised grievances that the other had bullied them.

Whistleblowing at Well-known University
As Independent Investigator, Harini Iyengar conducted an independent investigation for a university into very serious whistleblowing allegations of improper and unlawful conduct on the part of very senior staff made in what turned out to be a “poison pen” letter.

Race Discrimination Investigation at Listed National Infrastructure Business
Harini Iyengar was the sole Investigator for a Listed National Infrastructure business, appointed in accordance with an out of court settlement of very high value race discrimination litigation. It was a substantial investigation which required her to hear witness evidence and consider extensive documentary evidence in order to make findings of fact about 44 allegations of bullying and race discrimination, including use of racist name-calling.

Reciprocal Complaints of Discrimination and Harassment made by Elected Representatives
Harini Iyengar was appointed by a democratic body to investigate reciprocal complaints and grievances concerning unlawful direct, indirect and associative discrimination, harassment and stalking which had been made by elected representatives against one another.

Harini Iyengar is recommended by the legal directories as a leading practitioner in Professional Discipline and Regulation.

She is experienced in representing clients in disciplinary hearings, internal appeals and High Court appeals, and also in assisting clients in the role of legal advisor to panels which are hearing disciplinary matters.  Harini undertakes cases concerning a wide range of occupations and membership organisations, and has particular expertise in regulation of the legal, health and social care, and education sectors.  Harini has represented the Bar Standards Board on some of the highest profile and most reported disciplinary cases in recent years, including on enforcement of the rules against sexual harassment.  A number of her cases are confidential because of their sensitive nature, but representative samples of her work in this area include the following.

Kearney v Bar Standards Board [2024] EWHC 924 (Admin), 29 February 2024, Manchester High Court
Harini represented the Bar Standards Board in a High Court appeal based on the ground of perceived bias by the Judge who had chaired the disciplinary panel which had disbarred the barrister for sexual harassment.

Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Social Work England and JS [2023] EWHC 926 (Admin)
Harini represented Social Work England in a complex High Court appeal over fitness to practise standards applied to a social worker with bipolar affective disorder, complicated by evidence of alcohol misuse, and the unique way in which the particular regulations on social workers interacted with the general rules on disclosure and barring within regulated professions.

Interim Suspension Panel
Harini advised a professional regulator and drafted a skeleton argument for a hearing before an interim suspension panel, concerning a member of that profession who had been convicted of a criminal offence.  The interim suspension hearing did not take place because the individual gave a voluntary undertaking not to practise until after the determination of the professional disciplinary proceedings.

Teaching Regulation Authority v Male School Teacher
Harini advised a male school teacher in a sensitive professional disciplinary case, in which he had been accused of sexual abuse of his own children, the Police had decided not to prosecute but to keep the allegation on file and his professional regulator commenced disciplinary proceedings.

Kearney v Bar Standards Board [2022] EWHC 52 (Admin), [2022] ACD 44
Harini Iyengar successfully represented the BSB on an appeal where the High Court upheld a disciplinary tribunal’s decision finding a barrister guilty of professional misconduct and suspending him for six months for making lewd remarks to a mini-pupil, holding that the tribunal had been entitled to refuse to stay proceedings despite a three-year delay in raising the complaint.

Bar Standards Board v Woolard
Harini Iyengar successfully represented the BSB in proceedings against a barrister for sexual harassment, and BTAS accepted her submissions on how the recent Court of Appeal judgment on the interpretation of the criminal offence of sexual assault should be applied in the context of workplace sexual harassment.

Sukul v Bar Standards Board, Burns and Wilson
Harini Iyengar successfully represented the BSB, which was defending a claim of negligence against the regulator and its lawyers, brought by a barrister who had previously been subjected to professional discipline.

Advice on Criminal and Civil Procedural Rules in Disciplinary Tribunals
Harini advised the Bar Standards Board on complex questions concerning the procedure to be adopted by the Bar Disciplinary Tribunals, according to the specific procedural rules, criminal procedural rules and civil procedural rules, in specific situations.

Bar Standards Board v Henry Hendron
Harini represented the BSB in long-running and complicated disciplinary proceedings against a barrister involving 18 charges, numerous preliminary issues, and a ten-day substantive BTAS hearing.

Student v University and Local Authority
Harini represented a university in a complex case in which a social work student with learning difficulties, whose work placement was terminated for misconduct, and who was subjected to Fitness to Practice procedings, sued both the university and the local authority which hosted the work placement.