A City lawyer who won a claim for sex discrimination after being driven from her job in an 18-month campaign of bullying is seeking £19 million in compensation.

Gill Switalski, 51, said she was left a mental and physical wreck after being forced out of her £140,000-a-year job as head of the legal team at F&C Asset Management, that controls investments of £102 billion.

Known as a “whirling dervish” because of her energy, she ran her own legal training website and a multimillion-pound property development company as well as being employed by F&C.

However Ms Switalski said she now suffers from adjustment disorder, sleeps for most of the day and is unable to run any of her businesses or “even read a newspaper”.

An employment tribunal ruled that Ms Switalski was the victim of sex discrimination and harassment by senior management at F&C. Originally she was claiming £13.4 million for the psychiatric damage and loss of earnings, pension rights and career prospects.

It emerged today, as the company appealed against the Central London tribunal’s decision, lawyers revealed that her claim was now worth nearly £19 million.

At a hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Monica Carss-Frisk, QC, representing F&C, said: “What is at stake is nearly £19 million. In a nutshell, we say this is a classic case of a tribunal failing to focus on the key issues - was the claimant treated differently from the way a man was treated and if so, is that because she is a woman?”

Ms Switalski, who was allowed to work part of the week at home to look after her two disabled children, claimed that her career was destroyed when F&C merged with another finance company and a new boss, Marrack Tonkin, was appointed.

Mr Tonkin, who was based in Edinburgh, became “fixated” with her working arrangements, continually questioned her expenses and quizzed subordinates about her working practices.

He is said to have sidelined her in major projects, including the buying of a hedge fund, and she claimed that she was overlooked for top management positions.

At the same time a male colleague was allowed to work from home because he had special-needs children.

Ms Switalski claimed that senior management ignored repeated complaints about Mr Tonkin’s behaviour.

In March 2006, she cancelled a business trip after her mother died and then received an e-mail demanding a death certificate so that the company could reclaim the cost of the airfare from insurance. Later that year she had to undergo surgery and returned to work to discuss her problems, still carrying a postoperative drain.

She contracted cellulitis, an infection that can become life-threatening, and after going on sick leave she resigned in September 2007.

At yesterday’s appeal hearing, Ms Carss-Frisk challenged the original ruling, saying: “My clients do not know why we lost. A wealth of evidence was simply ignored by the tribunal.”

She said the allegations that Mr Tonkin questioned Mrs Switalski’s expenses and attendance and watched over her did not demonstrate that she was sexually discriminated against.

She urged the appeal panel to reject the ruling and to refer a the case for a rehearing to a different place, saying: “If you have a claim for £19 million, it can’t be said it is disproportionate to go to a different tribunal to deal with it afresh.”

The hearing continues.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure