Return to members list

Tim Kenward

Call: 1987

Appointments

Part-time fee-paid Employment Judge (assigned to the West Midlands region of the Employment Tribunals)

Part-time fee-paid Tribunal Judge in the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education & Social Care Chamber) (assigned to the Mental Health Tribunal)

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 as a barrister 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

 

  • Irina Biktasheva v University of Liverpool [2020] UKEAT/0253/19/LA. Representing University before Employment Appeal Tribunal where a Lecturer unsuccessfully appealed the dismissal of part of her equal pay Claim on the basis that she could have brought it in earlier proceedings and the University was successful in its cross-appeal against the failure of the Tribunal to strike out the entirety of the new Claim on the basis of cause of action estoppel.

 

  • Kelly v Royal Mail Group Limited [2019] UKEAT/0262/18/RN Representing Appellant in Employment Appeal Tribunal before President of EAT, Choudry J, in appealing decision of Leeds Employment Tribunal as to unfair dismissal and disability discrimination Claims regarding effect of employer’s absence management procedure.

 

  • 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 Respondents witnesses had been untruthful in the evidence given.  The Claimants 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 Claimants 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 Claimants 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 Bodys 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 workers 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 employees 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

  • Woods v Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (2022) Defending race discrimination complaints in case listed for 15 days and brought by Firefighter arising out of alleged lack of career advancement. Claimant negotiated terms as to withdrawal of Claims after two days of cross-examination.

 

  • Nelson v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (2022) Representing Council in 5-day case where Claimant brought unsuccessful age discrimination complaint having been dismissed on grounds of redundancy 19 days before his 55th birthday when he would have been immediately entitled to an unreduced pension.

 

  • Sykes v West Yorkshire Combined Authority (2021) Instructed by Weightmans in successfully defending Claim brought by former Interim Chief Executive of Office of Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire who was made redundant on basis that she did meet new requirement as to legal experience.

 

  • Ekakitie v Sharief Healthcare Limited (2021) Instructed by Bermans at 10-day case (with judgment of 123 pages) in defending disability harassment complaints brought by locum pharmacist.

 

  • Entwistle v Liverpool City Council (2021) Defending High Court case in the Living Mesothelioma List (Michael Rawlinson QC for Claimant) in relation to Claim of having developed mesothelioma following alleged exposure to asbestos fibres during employment by Liverpool Corporation as an electrician in an abattoir.

 

  • Ready v Liverpool City Council (2021) Defending High Court case claiming over £1million arising from the deceased’s death from lung cancer following alleged exposure to asbestos whilst working with as a plumber.

 

  • Hill v Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Authority & Others (2021) Representing UK International Search & Rescue (ISAR) in relation to complaint of harassment by female applicant arising out of treatment on selection course.

 

  • Kirby v Lancaster University (2021) Instructed by Mills & Reeve in representing University in defending Claim by casual worker arguing that the University had agreed to furlough him and seeking payment for work assignments cancelled due to the coronavirus pandemic.

 

  • Garnier v Holy Spirit Catholic Primary School Governing Body (2021) Representing Governing Body in successfully defending interim relief application brought by Assistant Headteacher alleging contract terminated due to whistleblowing.

 

  • Blessing v JWT Commercial Ltd (2020) Instructed by Brabners in successful whistleblowing victimisation Claim representing lorry driver who was sacked after complaining about being expected to drive trailer with 45-foot container and defective underrun.

 

  • Sondergaard v Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (2019) Successfully defending unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints in 8-day case brought by Firefighter dismissed on grounds of alleged misconduct.  The Claimant subsequently appealed unsuccessfully to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

 

  • Akelaite & 62 Others v Russell Hume Limited (in administration) & Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2018) Successfully obtained maximum protective awards for 63 employees dismissed without consultation.

 

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

 

  • 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.

 

  • 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.

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