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’s main area of practice is employment law, but other areas of work are undertaken, including civil litigation (particularly employer’s liability and public liability personal injury claims) and local government work.

Notable Cases

Recent Appeal Cases

 

  • Succession Group Limited v Beckwith [2018] UKEAT/0238/17/JOJ, EAT Case taken over from James Laddie QC representing financial advisor complaining of unfair dismissal having raised regulatory issues.  Appeal before Slade J concerned whether conduct of hearing by Employment Judge was in breach of natural justice.

 

  • Corstorphine v Liverpool City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 270, [2018] 1 WLR 2421, CA Representing Liverpool City Council in successfully defending 5 day multi track Claim arising out of serious head injuries sustained by child in alleged accident on pendulum swing with supplier of swing and German manufacturer joined as third parties on the basis of product liability. Appeal concerned effect of qualified one-way costs shifting provisions.

 

  • Dutton v Woodslee Primary School Governing Body and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council [2016] UKEAT/0305/15/BA Representing Respondent in Employment Appeal Tribunal defending appeal where Tribunal had dismissed Claim of indirect sex discrimination arising out of a rejected request by a teacher to work reduced hours after her maternity leave. 

 

  • Belaifa v Liverpool City Council [2015] UKEATPA/0154/15/BA Defending disability discrimination proceedings brought by Tutor arising out of a recruitment and selection process.  The Claims were dismissed after a 3 day hearing.  The Claimant then appealed to the EAT on the basis of there being supposedly new e-mail evidence which he claimed showed that the Respondent’s witnesses had been untruthful in the evidence given.  The Claimant’s appeal was dismissed by Laing J. The Claimant was subsequently dismissed from his existing position with the Council on the basis that the Claimant had fabricated the supposedly new evidence. He brought further proceedings complaining of unfair dismissal and victimisation (for having brought the earlier Proceedings) which were dismissed after a 4 day hearing.

 

  • Horlorku v Liverpool City Council [2015] UKEAT/0020/15/DA,EAT Successfully defending appeal by Community Cohesion Support Officer who unsuccessfully alleged racial discrimination as a result of the deletion of his post when the Council decided it needed to appoint officers to deal specifically with the Eastern European communities in Liverpool. 

 

  • Eyitene v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1243, CA 13 day hearing successfully defending race discrimination proceedings brought by a Solicitor. The Claimant appealed to the EAT alleging bias on the part of the Tribunal Judge and Lay Members.  Whilst the allegations of bias were rejected by the EAT, the Claimant was given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the Lay Members had not seen the Judgment before it was issued.  However, the Claimant’s further appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal which gave guidance as to the extent to which written reasons needed to be agreed with Lay Members before being sent to the parties.

 

  • Eastlands Homes Partnership Limited v Cunningham [2014] UKEAT/0272/13/MC, EAT Representing caretaker dismissed for gross misconduct on the basis of allegedly failing to declare having received a personal benefit from a tenant.  The EAT appeal concerned whether the Tribunal had adequately explained the basis upon which it concluded that it was unreasonable for the employer to have characterised the conduct as gross misconduct.

 

  • Heron v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council [2014] Eq LR 130, EAT Defending age discrimination complaint where the EAT considered the issue of whether the Local Authority had been required by a statutory enactment to treat a female employee aged over 60 years of age less favourably than younger colleagues in the calculation of a contractual redundancy payment set by reference to a statutory scheme.

 

  • Chuma v Cheshire West and Chester Council [2013] UK/EAT/0405/13/SM, EAT Representing Local Authority in successfully defending appeal against decision by Employment Tribunal not to extend the time limit for the Claimant’s complaint of racist discrimination.

 

  • Governing Body of X School v G [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 Governing Body’s appeal being dismissed by the Court of Appeal (3-0). However, 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 EAT 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?”)

 

Other Recent Notable Cases

 

  • Forsyth v Dr Hegde And Dr Jude’s Practice (2018) 5 day hearing defending Claim brought by Practice Manager against GP Practice where Claimant resigned and claimed constructive dismissal.

 

  • Mendis v Solway Foods Limited (2018) Representing Claimant within multi track County Court proceedings seeking damages for psychiatric injury caused by employer’s failure to deal with alleged racial harassment

 

  • Heywood v Otter Controls Limited (2018) Representing Global Tooling Manager alleging victimisation due to whistleblowing in 7 day Employment Tribunal hearing against Respondent represented by Sean Jones QC.

 

  • Dalton v Volair Limited (2018) Instructed by Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council in defending unfair dismissal complaint brought by Manager at Leisure Centre following dismissal for failure to comply with financial controls.

 

  • Jeanette Fox v Liverpool City Council (2018) Representing Local Authority in defending multi track stress Claim brought by former Teacher.

 

  • Fogg v Professional Cost Management Group Limited (2017) 4 day hearing representing two Senior Telecommunications Analysts complaining of unfair dismissal following dismissal and re-engagement exercise to reduce their entitlement in respect of commission payments.

 

  • Green v Department for Work and Pensions (2017) 3 day hearing representing Benefit Review Officer complaining of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination following dismissal on ill health capability grounds.

 

  • Barber v Liverpool City Council (2017) Representing Local Authority in 2 day multi track trial in successfully defending tripping Claim brought by taxi driver resulting in costs order and finding of fundamental dishonesty on the basis that the taxi driver had been claiming loss of earnings in respect of a period when he was disqualified from driving.

 

  • Evans v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (2017) Defending disability discrimination claim and whistleblowing victimisation claim brought by Council employee who had been required to give evidence in the Family Court and had contacted the other side in the proceedings to complain that he had been advised to change his Statement of Evidence. After he was disciplined for his actions he resigned claiming constructive dismissal.  All claims were dismissed after a 14 day hearing.

 

  • Brooks v University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust (2017) 4 day hearing representing a Procurement Manager who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal after complaining about bullying by her manager and then being subjected to disciplinary proceedings as a result of her manager raising alleged procurement irregularities.

 

  • Wilkie v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police and Liverpool City Council (2017) 5 day multi track hearing representing Council in defending Claim for false imprisonment brought by Claimant following arrest as a result of information provided by a CCTV control room monitoring officer, to the Police, which resulted in the arrest of the Claimant.  Claim dismissed on the basis that an informer is not liable for false imprisonment, even where the information provided is incorrect, where a Police Officer uses his or her own discretion to arrest a suspect.

 

  • Wilkinson v Airedale NHS Foundation Trust (2016) 4 day hearing representing NHS administrator who succeeded with unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints where she was dismissed by the Trust for having accessed her estranged husband’s medical records in circumstances where the Tribunal accepted that she was suffering from depression as a result of domestic abuse.

 

  • Olatinwo v Quality Course Limited (2016) Defending race discrimination proceedings brought by employee who was dismissed as a result of the mistaken belief that his documents did not entitle him to work in the UK.   The Tribunal accepted that this did not involve race discrimination.  The decision was overturned on appeal on the basis that the Tribunal had failed adequately to consider the mindset of those involved in the decision making process with a rehearing being ordered.

 

 

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