Litigation case studies

Case study one

We recently advised an insolvency practitioner with a claim against a firm of solicitors arising from fraudulent conveyancing. A company in liquidation owned a number of nursing homes in and around London. Its directors arranged for these properties to be sold and, under further investigation, it transpired they had been heavily undervalued with the funds being distributed to its directors and connected parties both in and outside the jurisdiction. We brought a claim against the solicitors and the liquidator secured a substantial settlement, ensuring that the creditors made a significant recovery in circumstances where otherwise, there would have been none.

Case study two

We recently defended the director of a major supermarket chain involved in a notable takeover bid. Allegations of bribery, dishonesty and divulging of vital insider information came to the fore and the takeover collapsed as a result. The Serious Fraud Office became involved. However following detailed and lengthy negotiations the matter was resolved upon the client making a modest contribution compared with the £10 million initially sought, allowing him to move on relatively unscathed.

Case study three

Belinda Lester acted on behalf of a well known UK company in defending claims brought against it for compensation in relation to the termination of two senior employees’ contracts of employment. Each Claimant was claiming around £500,000. Each argued that the company had dismissed them simply to avoid having to pay a discretionary bonus; and the unpaid bonus formed the most significant part of their claim. There is case law to support the contention that discretionary bonuses can be contractual but this point was successfully defended in this case. The Company had already offered to pay each employee £50,000 on termination of employment provided each signed a compromise agreement. They both rejected that offer and proceedings were issued. Both matters were settled for around £60,000 which was a great result for the client when it had initially thought it may be liable for up to £1 million.

Case study four

We acted for a Bank when one of its employees brought a claim for unfair dismissal. This particular employee had been on long-term sickness absence for four years prior to the termination of her employment. Furthermore, her permanent health insurers had withdrawn cover for her two years prior to the termination of her employment, having seen surveillance footage of her going about her ordinary business apparently not suffering from any incapacity or discomfort.

The main objective of this employee’s claim in the Employment Tribunal was to try and achieve a finding of unfair dismissal for incapacity. This would help her pursue a further claim against the Bank in the High Court in respect of the withdrawal of her permanent health insurance. The importance for the employee of a finding of unfair dismissal by reason of incapacity was because, where an employee is dismissed for incapacity, and the employee is contractually entitled to the benefit of permanent health insurance, then the dismissal is a breach of contract and the damages will be the loss of the permanent health insurance payments for the duration of the employee’s sickness. This particular employee was claiming that she would never work again and therefore intended to pursue a High Court claim for the monies she would have received under the permanent health insurance scheme for the remainder of her working life.

We advised the Bank to simply admit that there had been an unfair dismissal without giving any reason for the dismissal, thereby thwarting the employee’s ability to obtain a finding in the Employment Tribunal that the dismissal was for incapacity. As the employee had already stated she would never work again, her unfair dismissal compensatory award would be zero because there would be no future loss of earnings.

The employee, who was unsatisfied with this bald admission of liability, sought to have the case heard anyway, claiming that she was entitled to a finding as to the reason for the dismissal. The Employment Tribunal refused to hear the claim on the basis that the Bank had already admitted liability.