7 Harrington Street Chambers

Menu
Return to members list

Mr Tim Kenward

Call: 1987

Practice Areas

Civil

  • Employment
  • Employer’s Liability
  • Personal Injury
  • Contract
  • Commercial
  • Education
  • Local Government
  • Administrative Law
  • Human Rights
  • Professional Discipline & Disciplinary Tribunals/Hearings

Areas of Practice

Tim Kenward is a Barrister in full-time practice in Liverpool.  His area of practice is primarily employment law, but other areas of work are undertaken, including civil litigation and local government work.

Notable Cases

  • Governing Body of X School v G [2011] UKSC [2011] UKSC 30; [2011] 3 W.L.R. 237: Instructed on behalf of Governing Body in defending judicial review proceedings brought by teacher seeking to set aside dismissal decision on the basis of not having been allowed legal representation at a disciplinary hearing, with it being argued that this was a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights where the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings was that the teacher was likely to be barred from practising profession as a teacher.  The decision to dismiss was quashed by the High Court with the School’s appeal being dismissed by the Court of Appeal (3-0), but the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the School Governing Body by a 4-1 majority.
  • Chondol v Liverpool City Council [2009] All ER (D) 155 (Feb), [2009], UKEAT/0298/08. EAT: Appeared for Local Authority before Employment Tribunal following dismissal of social worker for having promoted Christianity.  By a majority decision of the lay members (with the Employment Judge dissenting) the social worker’s complaints of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination were dismissed.  The social worker appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which upheld the decision of the lay members on the basis that the employer had been entitled to dismiss the social worker for proselytising as there was a distinction to be drawn between the employee’s religious belief and his inappropriate promotion of that belief.  (See article on the case in the New Law Journal for 1 May 2009 (“Losing your religion: is promoting faith in the workplace a no-go area?”)
  • Bates v Liverpool City Council [2007] All ER (D) 215(Jan), [2007] UKEAT/0309/06, EAT: Successfully resisted appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal where the Employment Tribunal had applied a range of reasonable responses test in a constructive dismissal case.  EAT decision dealing with the test to be applied in determining whether employee constructively dismissed.
  • Amaechi v Liverpool City Council [2002] EAT/0448/00, EAT: Employment Appeal Tribunal decision remitting case to Employment Tribunal where the Tribunal had dismissed a racial discrimination complaint by simply relying upon the same grounds as those upon which the Tribunal had dismissed an unfair dismissal complaint arising from the same facts.
  • Meakin v Liverpool City Council [2001] EAT/142/00, EAT: Successfully resisting appeal on behalf of the employer where issue raised as to extent to which employer required to distinguish between different levels of culpability on the part of employees participating in a fight. in case employee how had been found not to have started fight sought to appeal against the dismissal of his unfair dismissal complaint.
  • Sharma v Liverpool City Council [2001] EAT/1263/98, EAT: Successfully resisting appeal in Employment Appeal Tribunal where victimisation complaint had been withdrawn in the course of the proceedings (as a result of a discussion of the issues with the Tribunal) but the Tribunal later made finding which would have allowed the victimisation complaint to succeed had it not been withdrawn.
  • Larrier v Liverpool City Council [2001] EAT/800/99, EAT: EAT decision remitting case to a differently constituted Tribunal on the basis that the Tribunal’s global approach to the issues in the case made it impossible to ascertain whether Tribunal had considered the issue of less favourable treatment by reference to a cited comparator.
  • Wareing v Anfield Community Comprehensive School [2001] All ER (D) 45 (Jan), [2000] UKEAT/890/99, EAT: Employment Appeal Tribunal dealing with circumstances in which the EAT could deal with a new point raised on appeal in context of issue of salary safeguarding under the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document.
  • Vaughn v Liverpool City Council [2000] All ER (D) 2491, [2000] EAT/344/99, EAT: Successfully resisting appeal to EAT where Tribunal’s decision contained errors in list of witnesses and names of witnesses.
  • Quashie v Greenwich London Borough Council [2000] EAT/1248/98, EAT: Representing Greenwich LBC in Employment Appeal Tribunal decision on legal principles in respect of defence of issue estoppel.
  • Bilsborrow v Liverpool City Council [1999] EAT/891/98, EAT: Employment Appeal Tribunal decision on extent of local authority’s discretion to end salary safeguarding under School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document.
  • Williams v Liverpool City Council [1998] UKEAT/1229/97, EAT: Employment Appeal Tribunal decision as to whether agreement protecting grade had effect of protecting pay
  • Pybus v Westmore & Co [1997] EWCA Civ 2033: Professional negligence claimed by solicitor against accountants.  Court of Appeal decision as to the discretionary factors to be taken into account in application to substitute the wife of the deceased sole continuing partner where the action had been brought against the partnership name.
  • Ralston v Liverpool City Council [1997] UKEAT/1024/96, EAT: EAT case as to whether informing employee of the effect in money terms which new terms and conditions had on his basic salary in itself constituted a unilateral variation of the new contract, to which the employee could object.
  • Lambert v Liverpool City Council [1996] UKEAT/924/95, EAT: Employment Appeal Tribunal case as to whether acceptance of early retirement was consistent with implied withdrawal by consent of the employer's notice of termination so as to cause there to be no dismissal.
  • R v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Ex Parte Healiss [1994] 2 FCR 659: Represented Local Authority in defending judicial review proceedings arising out of Local Authority’s exercise of its discretionary powers in respect of homelessness.
  • Mecca v Chatprachong [1993] ICR 688, [1993] IRLR 531, EAT: Representing Commission for Racial Equality supported Claimant before EAT in defending Tribunal findings of racial discrimination where Mecca had failed to assist the Claimant with his language difficulties.
  • L v Berkshire County Council [1992] Fam Law 544, [1992] 1 FCR 481: High Court appeal from Magistrates Court decision in relation to issue of extent of Magistrates’ discretion under the Children Act 1989.
  • Hughes-Maher & Co v Cowley [1991] UKEAT/472/90, EAT: Issue as to admissibility of evidence of ACAS conciliation officer in case where agreement reached without intervention or assistance of conciliation officer.

OTHER RECENT NOTABLE CASES

  • Mullings v Liverpool City Council (2011): 5 day unfair dismissal, racial and disability discrimination case for Local Authority.
  • Eyitene v. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (2011): Defending ongoing racial discrimination claim by solicitor employed by Local Authority.
  • Davies v. Liverpool John Lennon Airport (2011): Instructed on behalf of GMB union to represent redundant manager in successful redundancy claim against Airport.
  • Kent and Others v. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (2011): Instructed to represent Local Authority in eight week hearing to determine genuine material factor defence in respect of multiple equal pay cases.
  • Harrop and Moffatt and Others v. Liverpool City Council (2011): Instructed on behalf of Local Authority in defending ongoing multiple equal pay claims of over 1000 employees.
  • Allen v. Ormiston & Bolingbroke Academy (2011): Instructed by Halton Borough Council to represent Academy in widely reported two week case successfully defending unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints by Head of Maths who claimed that she had been victimised by her Head Teacher.  Case now subject to appeal to EAT.
  • Lane v. West Derby School Governing Body (2011): Representing Governing Body defending unfair dismissal claim by Head of Art, widely reported in local and national press.
  • S v. Liverpool City Council (2011): Special educational needs case representing Local Authority in appeal against amendment to Statement of Special Educational Needs in respect of discontinuing applied behavioural analysis support at cost of £60K per year.
  • Smith v. Loango States (2011): Representing Claimant in unfair dismissal complaint against employer represented by John Benson QC.
  • Hughes v. Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority (2011): Representing Fire Authority in 5 day unfair dismissal case brought by Union official represented by John Benson QC.
  • Fletcher v. Oldham Borough Council (2010): Instructed on behalf of GMB in 3 day case representing Claimant alleging part-time worker discrimination.
  • Elgadhy v. Gingerbread House: Representing nursery school in defending racial discrimination claims brought on behalf of pupil in locally reported County Court case.
  • Barlow v. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2010): Representing Local Authority in ET and EAT proceedings brought by neighbourhood wardens in respect of redundancies.
  • Keane and Sneddon v. Householder Surveys Ltd (2010): Representing employer defending redundancy and sex discrimination complaints.
  • Price v. Liverpool City Council (2010): Representing Local Authority defending constructive dismissal claim brought by educational psychologist.
  • Fildes v. Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority (2010): Defending Fire Authority in five day constructive dismissal case.
  • Wood v. Liverpool City Council (2010): Representing Local Authority defending indirect sex discrimination claim by employee arising out of introduction of 24/7 Careline rota.
  • Dutton and Jones v. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2010): Defending Local Authority in transfer of undertakings case.
  • Connolly v. Plevin (2010): Representing union Claimant in ill health capability dismissal case.
  • Carlin v. South Sefton Sixth Form College (2010): Defending age discrimination complaint.
  • Fenton v. Crown Paints (2010): Instructed on behalf of GMB union in equal pay case.
  • GMB v. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: Defending Local Authority in respect of unfair dismissal and victimisation complaints by neighbourhood wardens seeking to link redundancy dismissals with earlier industrial action.
  • Ojapah v. Liverpool City Council (2009): Representing Local Authority in ET and EAT proceedings in respect of race discrimination complaint.
  • Ferguson v. Northcote Primary School Governing Body (2009): Defending unfair dismissal complaint by teaching assistant.  Widely reported in local media due to clandestine taping of private deliberation by disciplinary committee.
  • Harding v. Liverpool City Council (2009): Defending Local Authority in five day victimisation case.
  • Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service v. Bridge (2009): Instructed by Fire Authority in respect of remedy hearing and subsequent EAT appeal following finding of liability in respect of dismissal of fire fighter for sexual harassment.
  • Gray v. Liverpool City Council (2009): Defending Local Authority in two week victimisation case.
  • Locke v. Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority (2009): Representing Fire Authority in age discrimination case where senior officer claimed he had been pressurised into retiring as part of a succession policy.
  • Collins v. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (2009): Representing Local Authority in case unsuccessfully appealed to EAT by Claimant on basis Employment Judge had fallen asleep.

Civil

With 48 Barristers operating across 6 specialist groups offering a fast, efficient advisory service

More about Civil Law

Crime

67 Barristers specialising in Criminal Law offering expert advocacy at all times

More about Criminal Law

Family

From leading Queen's Counsel to experienced and flexible juniors covering every aspect of family law

More about Family Law