04 September 2008
B P Collins has been making the headlines recently, thanks to a series of high profile court cases widely reported in the national media.
One involved a groundbreaking ruling by the Court of Appeal, hailed as a ‘victory for freedom of speech’ by partner Matthew Brandis, while another saw the firm take a leading role in an age discrimination case, which is expected to have a major impact on whether or not partners in firms can be forced to retire at a certain age.
Chief operating officer, Karl Wingfield, commented: “All these examples demonstrate our breadth of experience and expertise and reinforce our reputation as a leading regional law firm.”
The Court of Appeal ruling, made in July, saw B P Collins representing Chalfont St Giles GP, Dr Sarah Westcott, whose former father-in-law, Mr Richard Westcott, had tried to sue her for defamation over allegations he assaulted her and his baby grandson.
The judgment ruled that Dr Westcott’s oral and written complaints to the police were protected by absolute privilege, meaning that for the first time, anyone complaining to the police about an alleged criminal incident will now be protected from the possibility of being sued for defamation by the person they accuse, from the moment they make the complaint.
It’s a significant decision because until now a person was only protected from a defamation claim once the police had begun to investigate an allegation.
Litigation partner, Matthew Brandis said: “This is a very important ruling and a victory for freedom of speech. It is everybody’s right to be able to make a complaint to the police without fear of being sued in relation to that complaint and now the Court of Appeal has made it crystal clear where the law stands.”
Earlier in the same month, the practice represented a former senior partner in a Kent based law firm, who was appealing against a previous ruling that he was not discriminated against when he was forced to retire at the age of 65. Age discrimination law, which was introduced in October 2006, ruled that 65 was the default retirement age for employees but specifically excluded partners, causing uncertainty for both firms and individuals within partnerships and LLPs. When the Employment Appeal Tribunal makes its final ruling, the decision is expected to clarify the legislation and set an important precedent in relation to the type of evidence required by a partnership when justifying its retirement age.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has also taken up the case and is challenging what it calls the discriminatory assumption relied upon by the Employment Tribunal that a person becomes more likely to underperform as they get older.
The case was widely covered in the national press, including The Times, The Independent, Daily Express and Daily Telegraph, as well as the EHRC website.
In addition, Tim Constable, another litigation partner, recently won a four year legal battle on behalf of Sanjay Shah,who was in dispute with his sister over who inherited their mother’s house.
Each believed their mother meant them to be the sole beneficiary of her will and produced a will to that effect. They refused to consider splitting the estate and the court case finally ended when Judge John Randall QC ruled the second will was invalid.
And earlier this year, the practice successfully represented a landlady, who was taken to Wandsworth county court by controversial historian and author David Irving for breach of contract after she asked him to leave her B&B.
The judge dismissed his claim for £2,000 in damages for breach of contract after finding that diverging interpretations by Mr Irving and his landlady of her terms and conditions meant she had been within her rights to ask him to leave. He was ordered to pay Mrs Allen £60 towards her costs and her bus fare to the court. |
