HOME...|...ABOUT US...|...SERVICES...|...OUR TEAM...|...CONTACT US
TEL 01923 233 477...|...FAX 01923 235 565

Case Studies

Employment Related Case Studies

Solicitor Service for Employees and Employers

Solicitor Services by ARKrights

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.

Housing litigation

Mrs M v Mr M - Defending Possession Proceedings and counterclaiming for disrepair

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 price rises.

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 their debts.

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 momentarily lost.

Employment litigation

Mr PW v ABC Ltd - Successfully commencing a claim for damages for Unfair Dismissal

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 matter.

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 him.

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 Dismissal

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.

"Welcome to ARKrights Solicitors, leaders in all aspects of commercial and civil litigation, with our offices in Watford Hertfordshire."

Do you need legal advice?, why not call ARKrights today for FREE?

FREEPHONE
0800 634 3325

Or click here to read some selected cases.


Downloads

Documents and guides for download from our website.

Download a range of legal and resource files in both PDF and Word formats...

 

 



ARKrights SOLICITORS .....15-17 EXCHANGE ROAD .....WATFORD .....HERTFORDSHIRE .....WD18 OJD

ARKrights Solicitors. All rights reserved. | Site Map