Few Success Stories of ARKrights Solicitors
Commercial advice and litigation
Mr SP t/a S Ltd - drafting of commercial agreements
Mr SP sought advice on the terms of a management contract for a prestigious
Central London night club. A draft management contract was in his possession as
given to him by the owners of the night club. This read more like a sub-lease
than a management contract. Mr SP was advised and the contract substantially
redrafted, taking into account Mr SP's interests, but still paying sufficient
regard to the concerns of the owners of the night club to ensure the deal still
went through; albeit with Mr SP's interests somewhat better protected than was
first the case.
Mrs B v Mr G t/a as a business - the common law principle of betterment
This was the case of the damaged curtains. Expensive damaged curtains according
to the Claimant; not nearly so expensive damaged curtains according to the
Defendant's Insurers. ARKrights acted for the Defendant, instructed through the
Insurers and sought and successfully obtained the setting aside of an Order of
the Court awarding the Claimant damages. In this case liability was admitted but
the issue in this case was whether or not one could lawfully obtain in damages
more than the damaged items were worth at the date of their damage. The answer
was and still is no. The Court eventually agreed.
Co A v Co B - the case of the defective locks
ARKrights acted in litigation representing the Defendant company in a claim for
the non-payment of an invoice. This invoice was rendered by Co A - a UK company
to Co B - a non UK registered company. The goods were however faulty and did not
perform the function required of them. Instructions were accepted on an agency
basis from an Overseas Firm acting for Co B, and successfully defended.
Mrs M v Mr M - negotiation of the surrender of a Rent Act protected tenancy
ARKrights acted in an advisory capacity for the Defendant Tenant in this matter
and successfully negotiated, drafted and concluded an agreement for the transfer
of £100,000.00, as a surrender of tenancy payment from Landlord to Tenant. The
property in issue was a development plot purchased by developers with a view to
sale at a profit.
Mrs M v Mr M - Defending Possession Proceedings and counterclaiming for
The landlady owned a substantial property some two minutes walk away from the
Kings Road in London. The tenant was (and still is) a forthright tenant who had
lived in the Property since 1984. He was a Rent Act protected tenant. The
landlady wanted him out (almost at all costs!), in order that she could sell her
substantial property with vacant possession and cash in on the recent Property
ARKrights acted for the tenant. We initially threatened to issue proceedings for
disrepair. The landlord however (somewhat bizarrely) issued proceedings for
possession for alleged rent arrears knowing fully of the disrepair issues
present in the Property. A defence and counterclaim was filed.
For the benefit of all parties in this litigation, this matter was eventually
settled out of Court by consent between the parties, substantially in the
tenant's favour. Not only did he retain possession and defeat the landlord's
rent arrears claim; he also obtained agreed damages for the disrepair he had
suffered, together with a substantial Order for Costs.
Mr and Mrs W v WBC - Defending a homeless couple and their family
Mr and Mrs W were the victims of an unfortunate set of circumstances; poor
financial management, bad judgment and a subsequent unlawful decision of the
Local Authority; the latter made in relation to their housing (homelessness)
application. The central issue in this case was whether or not the Appellants
(this was an appeal to the County Court on a point of law under Section 204 HA
1996, as amended), had made themselves "intentionally homeless." Mr. and Mrs. W
had (on the advice of a Broker) fraudulently self certified their mortgage, in
an attempt to assist themselves in managing their finances by consolidating
The Local Authority decided that they had by reason of the self certification of
their mortgage, made themselves 'intentionally homeless.' The Local Authority
however were aware that at all material times they were not working and were
literally struggling to make ends meet, and that they had entered into this
mortgage with a view to consolidating their debts. They had divulged all of this
to the Local Authority. The Local Authority had investigated their case but
inadequately. Mr and Mrs W were technically homeless many years before they
entered into this final mortgage.
After a hard fought hearing, the Court agreed that the Local Authority had erred
in law. They were ordered to quash their original decision; and to re-assess the
housing (homelessness application) of Mr and Mrs W with all the information that
they had before them as at the date of the hearing.
Mr SH v WBC - Defending a homeless family after their eviction by a Local
Authority and successfully obtaining their re-instatement into their Property.
Mr SH was a non English speaking national who had erred in the prompt payment of
his rent. He was a persistent late payer. The Local Authority knew of his
obvious language difficulties but persisted in writing letters to him, which he
simply could not understand. After some ten letters (and other telephone calls)
to Mr SH the Local Authority eventually evicted him. Mr SH turned up the next
day to pay his rent in one bulk payment. The Local Authority accepted his rent,
but refused to re-instate him to his Secure Tenancy. It was illustrated at Court
the extent to which Mr SH could speak, read and write English. The Court was
convinced of his inability so to do.
In these circumstances it was ordered by the Court that Mr SH be re-instated to
his Property. He consequently retained his secure tenancy that he had
Mr PW v ABC Ltd - Successfully commencing a claim for damages for Unfair
Mr PW was a manager at a well known bar owned by the Respondents. He had been
instrumental in the development of the Respondent's first bar, and they had
repaid his performance by entrusting him with the responsibility of opening a
new bar. However they later found they had agreed to pay him too highly, and
devised a plan to dismiss him.
The plan involved calling Mr PW to a meeting to inform him that his position was
redundant and to then promptly request him to train a newly interviewed
candidate who was to take over his role. There were no other meetings or common
courtesies afforded to Mr PW.
This case displayed flagrant breaches of the ERA (as amended) and of the more
recent statutory Dismissal and Grievance procedures. There were no step 1, 2 or
3 meetings. The Respondents quickly settled the case and paid costs in this
Mr MM v HCC - Successfully commencing a claim for damages for Disability
Discrimination under the DDA'95
Mr MM was a young disabled employee who had been recruited by the Respondents
through a recruitment agency. The Respondents were aware of his disabilities
prior to taking him on a short fixed term contract. However soon after employing
him they sought to dismiss for reason of alleged poor performance, failing to
take into account his disability and failing to make reasonable adjustments for
Once again this case displayed fragrant breaches of the ERA (as amended) and the
DDA 1995. After some gentle persuasion, the Respondents settled the litigation
and paid compensation for their admitted acts of discrimination.
Miss SC v A Ltd - Successfully commencing a claim for damages for Unfair
Miss SC was a talented and much acclaimed sales assistant. She had been employed
by the Respondents who had made good use of her artistic talents. A personality
clash ensued however, and with 1 days notice, Miss SC was notified that the
Respondent company was going through a difficult time and that her position was
to be made redundant. However at this time the Respondents were undergoing a
sustained period of expansion, opening other stores both locally and nationally.
Miss SC offered to work in any of these stores. The Respondents refused this
suggestion. This case displayed flagrant breaches of the ERA (as amended) and of
the more recent statutory Dismissal and Grievance procedures. There were no step
1, 2 or 3 meetings. The Respondents again settled this case, albeit at the door
of the Tribunal and paid costs in this matter.