Over the years I have been involved in some cases of broader/public interest. You can read about them by Googling ‘Gordon Turner Employment Lawyer.’ Here are a few examples and my thoughts on them…
Over the years I have been involved in some cases of broader/public interest. You can read about them by Googling ‘Gordon Turner Employment Lawyer.’ Here are a few examples and my thoughts on them…
Resignation of Charles Clarke (Home Secretary)- Panorama
Back in 2000, I was instructed by two people who were sexually assaulted by a psychopath who had been released from prison contrary to a recommendation by the sentencing judge- that he been detained on release from an earlier similar offense and then deported. Apparently, this had happened on many occasions with other perpetrators and victims.
The Home Secretary at the time was Jack Straw but unfairly (in my view) it was Charles Clarke who fell on his sword.
I was interviewed on Panorama about this and it was reported in all the main papers and news channels:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4944164.stm
We contacted the then Home Secretary’s lawyers in 2000 with the chance to resolve the issues by way of modest settlement. Whilst his lawyers did a very good job of defeating our negligence claim on an ancient point of law the case shows that the ‘court of public opinion’ can take a very different (and unforgiving approach) and also how time limits don’t apply in there!
A financial settlement and steps to address the problem could have been linked to confidentiality requirements.
S Royden v Barnetts Solicitors
This was the first solicitor ‘service provision’ TUPE case. Barnetts won a conveyancing contract for a well-known building society from another firm but failed to recognise that those employees wholly or mainly assigned to that contract would transfer with their terms and conditions intact. In breach of their terms they would have to travel an extra 2 hours per day to their new place of work.
Barnetts were very intransigent and flatly refused to discuss the issues requiring a lengthy tribunal case. The outcome was front page news in the Law Society Gazette and other trade journals such as Personnel Today commenting on how even experts can trip up:
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/tupe-working-conditions-clause-can-trip-up-even-the-experts/
This case illustrates how just a little advice from the right source can avoid major legal costs and compensation pay outs, particularly important with TUPE which is notoriously complex.
At the time, if Barnetts had taken steps to recognise the law and addressed the detriment (flexible working/laying on transport) it would have caused real problems for our legal strategy!
Criminal Legal First Challenge Government Tendering- TUPE
I was instructed by 120 criminal legal aid firms when the government sought to introduce competitive tendering amongst criminal legal aid firms whose rates of pay are set at a very low level by the government. Bringing all the firms together we wrote to the Government Representative requiring an indemnity for any TUPE- related costs/compensation before any firm would tender for the work.
Things went very quiet until I received a polite call letting me know that the tendering process was being suspended. The group were of course very happy with this outcome!
The case was reported- mainly in the legal press. When tendering for a large client’s business (even Government) always consider whether TUPE applies.
This case shows how a single point and a careful strategy can be very powerful.
Serial Litigants
I once came across a very unusual character-John Berry- who was suing a recruiter client of mine for age discrimination due to some careless wording in an online advert. My instincts told me he was up to something…
At the time there was no online register of tribunal claims and Mr Berry and some other ‘serial litigants’ were using this anonymity to present multiple fake claims. I happened to have a law student in my office, so it was only because of his trip to Bury St Edmonds for a manual check that we unearthed this major scam. I ended up with 26 other recruiter clients who were also being scammed.
One of the disappointing (or perhaps telling) aspects of this case was that when I tried to address what was clearly a nationwide scam, there was no-one in the tribunals service or Ministry of Justice who seemed inclined to address it.
We set up an online system for checks using a local P.A. to visit the register only to be heavily criticised in Parliament- our service could ‘…screen unfairly applicants who have legitimately taken their employer.’ The MP who lodged the motion made no steps to ask me what or why we were offering this service and all the MPs who backed this had no understanding of the fraud.
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/40120
The problem was eventually addressed by an online register of decisions and a finding in the higher courts that such claims were vexatious where the employee had no genuine interest in the job advertised.
Because costs are rarely awarded in tribunals the system is open to abuse. This is the most extreme example of this but on a more mundane level I say many cases where Claimants know how to press legal buttons generating legal costs and stress leading to unjustified settlements.
Best to contact me early on and don’t take the bait- think of smart ways to take the wind out of their sails…
Jury Service – When Duty Calls
When I was called to do my service, it occurred to me this might be a chance to do a bit of ‘lawyer watching’- assessing my colleagues from the other side of the fence.
My article was published in the Law Society Gazette and is sometimes used when training advocates. Jury service made me realise that the modest advocate is more convincing than the flamboyant and entertaining one:
Charlotte Lloyd -v- Callaways
I represented Charlotte in a widely reported sexual harassment case…her manager subjected her to offensive sexual complaints and her hours were reduced when she complained. This is a classic example of how not to respond to grievances or more general complaints about discrimination. If the employer had simply dealt with manager correctly and taken care to ensure her complaints were treated as ‘protected acts’ the issue would have gone no further. Subjecting her to a detriment was found to be an act of victimisation and a constructive dismissal.
Had the employer treated the grievance fairly it would have avoided all the negative press including some in the agents’ own trade journal:
https://g.page/r/Cd8G9yMh-ADWEAg/review
Employers need to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent their staff (particularly managers) discriminating. I offer this kind of training.
