here - Cloisters

over 1,000 Claimants. The subject of this appeal is the validity of SunderlandCity Council's bonus scheme, whereby men in manual grades were paid up to50% more than the women in equivalent grades. The women succeeding inshowing that Sunderland City Council's bonus schemes were “shams”. TheCouncil have appealed this decision. It is anticipated that that appeal will beheard in May 2010.Philip Engelman also appeared in Birch v Walsall Metropolitan BoroughCouncil. Argument has been heard as to whether grievances which take inequal pay questionnaires are valid, or if not, whether the absolute bar on aTribunal hearing a claim if there has been no grievance lodged is compliantwith EU law. Judgement is expected in early 2010. This is yet another equalpay case. 250 Claimants will be affected by this decision.WhistleblowingSally Cowen appeared for the Respondent in Ramon NIekrash v SouthLondon NHS Healthcare trust (London South ET) in a whistleblowing claimby a Consultant Urologist who claimed that he was subjected to a detrimentas a result of raising complaints about the standards of service within thedepartment. His principle detriment was that he was excluded (suspended)from work due to allegations by senior managers that his actions were makingthe department difficult to run and amounted to potential bullying. This wasan interesting case with regard to the use of exclusion within the workplaceand whether this could amount to a detriment. Judgment is awaited.Unfair dismissalEd Williams and Damian McCarthy are appearing in the EAT in Sawar v SKFUKEAT/PA/0349/09/DM. Damian is representing the Claimant/Appellant andEd is representing the Respondent. The Claimant resigned his position as aManager with SKF alleging a fundamental breach of trust and confidence andrace discrimination. The EAT will consider a number of issues, includingwhether as per Bournemouth University v Buckland [2009] ICR 1042, anemployer has reasonable grounds to act in a manner that might amount to afundamental breach of contract, and if not whether a fundamental breach ofcontract can be rectified by a grievance procedure.Sally Cowen appeared for the Respondent in Patricia Lorde v Eden BrownLimited (Central London ET) in a claim for constructive dismissal, sexdiscrimination and victimisation of an in-house lawyer who claims she wassubjected to a detriment after she investigated complaints from employees ofan associated company which she concluded showed incidents of race andsex discrimination. There was an interesting issue as to whether a Claimantwho is a specialist employment lawyer should have raised grievances at anearlier time. Judgment is awaited.4

ReferencesPhilip Engelmann appears in Baxter v Brown, an appeal should be heard inthis case in early 2010, which addresses the issue of whether an employeecan recover compensation before the Employment Tribunal in respect of anincorrect reference.Compensation schemeMartin Seaward appeared for the Appellant in Reddington v South YorkshireFire & Rescue Service at Sheffield Crown Court (Circuit Judge sitting with twolay Justices). The main issue is the meaning of "default" under theFirefighter's Compensation Scheme. Can an injury award be reduced by upto half its value on account of any default, including for example contributorynegligence when suffering the injury? Or does default bear the narrowermeaning of "serious and culpable negligence or misconduct" used elsewherein the Scheme. A subsidiary issue is whether the parties' agreement to splitliability 75:25% in the Claimant's favour in an earlier personal injuries actionbetween the same parties, leading to a consent order to that effect, binds theappellant (claimant) to having conceded his contributory negligence was 25%responsible for the injury. The appeal hearing has been adjourned part-heardto March 2010.Public lawPhilip Engelmann appeared in Neath and Port Talbot Local Health Board v Dr.Gilbey. This was a successful challenge by a GP to a decision of a LocalHealth Board which had opposed his place on the Performers List, whichentitled him to provide services as a GP to the LHB. His place was conditionalupon undertaking supervision. The LHB were unable to provide thatsupervision, and thus the GP proposed his own. The LHB refused to accepthis "home made" alternative proposal. They were overruled by the FamilyHealth Services Appeal Authority. Its decision was upheld by theAdministrative Court.Philip also appeared in R (Barwick and another) v Bridgend County BoroughCouncil. This was a claim by a number of residents of a Care Home,supported by others, to challenge the decision of the Local Authority to closethat Care Home. The challenge was made on the basis of (a) a lack ofconsultation - namely that which occurred was irrelevant, as it was only onhow the residents should be decanted, and (b) a failure to comply with s. 49ADDA. Both challenges were rejected by the Administrative Court.5

He also appeared in R (Cardiff City Council) v The Welsh AssemblyGovernment. This was a challenge to a decision of the Welsh AssemblyGovernment as to which of two local authorities had responsibility for the careof a substantially disabled individual, who had been decanted from a CareHome into private accommodation. The principles underlying s. 29 NationalAssistance Act 1948 were considered by the Administrative Court.JM 7.1.106