Cato Solicitors Wins in the Court of Appeal

We were instructed by the Defendant who asked us to resist a Claim for a right of way over their land. The Claimant argued that because in the conveyance to her there was a reference to a “garage space” abutting our clients' land, she must therefore have a right of way over it. Such a right of way would have restricted the development potential of our clients' land and they instructed us to resist the Claim. At first instance, in the Chester County Court, Mr Recorder O'Toole, held that at the time of the conveyance, there was a “common intention” between our clients' predecessor in title (the man they bought the land from) and the Claimant that the Claimant should have such a right of way. The Court of Appeal accepted an argument raised by the Defendant, that if there was ever such a “common intention” at the time of the Claimant's purchase, that must have been dependent upon the previous owner of our clients' land undertaking sufficient work to form a roadway. As that roadway had never been formed, the Claimant's “implied conditional easement” had expired through limitation.

The Appeal was allowed meaning that the Judgment of the Chester County Court was overturned and judgment was given in favour of our client.

The DTI has published Age Discrimination Regulations prohibiting age discrimination in employment. The likely date they will be brought into force is the 1st  October 2006 . From the time the regulations are in force it is proposed that:

• The upper age limit for the right to claim unfair dismissal and redundancy payments will be removed.
• Unjustified age discrimination in employment and vocational training will be prohibited.
• Employers will have a duty to consider any employees request to work beyond their normal retirement age.
• To give employees information in writing of their intended retirement date at least six months in advance.

The definition of “discrimination” will be very much in line with existing legislation.

It will be important to have the correct policies in place (with managers fully understanding the new policies) prior to the implementation date.

Sex in the Office – a good idea?

Well of course if you are married or have a partner the answer is no. Obviously this did not apply in the case of Kaufmann (solicitors) v Schofield. Miss Schofield had a short affair with Mr P, a fee-earner in Mr Kaufmann's office. After the affair ended Mr P became hostile towards Miss Schofield and eventually complained to his employer about her. Later on Miss Schofield complained to the employer that Mr P had been treating her badly since the end of the affair. Then, and here's the rub, Mr P and the employer had planned to deceive Miss Schofield. They pretended that Mr P had resigned – when in fact he was working at home. The employer then terminated Miss Schofield's contract of employment on the purported grounds of redundancy – there was less for her to do now that Mr P had left. Unsurprisingly (for most of us but obviously not the defendants and their lawyers) the court decided that Miss Schofield had been sexually discriminated against and she was awarded £11,000 for injury to her feelings. Not a good idea for them in the end and whatever the outcome, if you indulge you are very likely to sour relationships and risk claims of harassment and misconduct.

The Employment Tribunal Service has recently given its figures up to the 31 st  March 2005. In the year preceding there were 86,181 claims registered. The median award for unfair dismissal, including the basic award, was £3,476. The median for discrimination, etc was between £6,200 and £7,500. On a more encouraging note for employers, of the 1,036 costs awards made, 75% were in favour of the respondents. The median award for costs was £1,000. 37% of cases were settled through ACAS, 30% were withdrawn, 8% were unsuccessful at tribunal, 17% were disposed of or otherwise, leaving only 18% which were successful at tribunal after a hearing.