top of page
  • TMP Solicitors

Notable Cases | Ben Uduje

Ben Uduje
Ben Uduje

Tiffin v Chief Constable of Surrey

Ben Uduje acted for the Chief Constable. Reading ET handed down Judgment in the much publicised case, dismissing all claims.

Groves v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2012]

Ben is instructed by the Respondent, against a serial litigant who is alleging that closing a vacancy once sufficient applications was received, amounted to unlawful discrimination on grounds of his disability

Bampoe v Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust [2011]

Represented a senior NHS executive in a four weeks race discrimination claim

Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust v Ugiagbe [2010] UKEAT 0068_09_1305

(appeal on grounds of failure to explain why inferences of discrimination could be drawn from facts found proved)

Stewart v BTP [2010] ET

Ben represented the Police in a complex multi-discrimination claim (35 substantive claims of sex, sexual orientation and disability discrimination and ‘protected disclosure’) by a serving Police Sergeant. Given the issues involved and high profile nature of those involved, the case attracted national media coverage, and was heard over 4 weeks in the Employment Tribunal, and on appeal to the EAT

OCS v Jones [2009] EAT

Ben represented the Appellant employer in one of the first Service Provision Change cases (under TUPE Regulations 2006) to reach the EAT. The case is authority for the proposition that whilst there is no legal requirement under the service provision change for the activity to retain its identity post-transfer, that this element is implicit in the concept. It also illustrates the importance of well-drafted exit provisions in the services agreement.

Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark (2004) ICR 884 CA, Times Law Report 09/04/04

Ben represented the Respondent from the ET to the Court of Appeal. This case is authority for the proposition that where bias is alleged; an appeal tribunal was obliged, first, to test the tribunal’s decision as to recusal by considering whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased, but also to consider the proceedings as a whole and decide whether a perception of bias had arisen; the chairman, as the legally qualified and presiding member of a tribunal of three, had an important position and any apparent bias on his part would not be nullified by the presence of two lay members who might outvote him

London Borough of Southwark v Bartholomew (2004) ICR 358 EAT Review of Tribunal’s Decision

Authority for the proposition that it was impermissible for an employment tribunal to record that it was unusual for a party not to attend a hearing and yet not take any steps to find out whether there had been an oversight, particularly where contact details were stated on a document before them; that, even if, having done so, there was no attendance by the party concerned , the tribunal might deal with liability, and possibly compensation, but it was wholly inappropriate to make a reinstatement order without proper consideration of the matters contemplated by section 116 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, including whether it would be just to order reinstatement where the applicant might have caused or contributed to some extent to his dismissal

Frewin v Royal Mail Group Plc (2003) EAT Capability Dismissal

Is causation relevant to the issue of fairness in capability dismissals? – In this case, the EAT clarifies the tension between conflicting authorities: London Fire & Civil Defence Authority v Betty (1994) IRLR 384 and Edwards v Governors of Hanson School (2001) IRLR 733

Plc v Burkett (2003) CA Reasonable Investigation

Authority for the proposition that tribunals, when deciding whether an employer had reasonable grounds for its belief in misconduct, must set out and analyse the facts as found by the employer at the time of the dismissal (assuming the employer undertook a reasonable investigation) and that it is an error of law to set out facts as found by the tribunal, unless a clear distinction is drawn between what the tribunal decides occurred, and what the tribunal decides the employer thought occurred


London Underground Ltd v Praful Shah (2001) EAT – LTL 20/08/2001 Compensatory Award for Unfair dismissal

Employer’s conduct is irrelevant when assessing compensatory award for unfair dismissal

Dr A Reza v General Medical Council (1998) EAT -LTL 19/05/98 Inference

In the absence of explanation from the GMC’s Professional Conduct Committee on primary facts of discrimination, Employment Tribunal entitled to conclude that decision was not on racial grounds because discovery of similar cases from disclosed documents overcame Committee’s lack of reason

John Cornelius v London Borough of Southwark (1998) EWCA Civ 225 Contract

Authority for the proposition that a teacher’s dismissal is sustainable even where it arose out of a failure to comply with statutory regime for such dismissal.


bottom of page