In over 25 years at the Bar of England & Wales, Ben has been involved in many complex and legally challenging cases including but not limited to the following –
Sutton v British Telecommunications Plc  successfully represented a telecoms engineer in a disability discrimination claim. The respondent’s defence unravelled during forensic cross-examination.
Worth v Trackaphone Ltd  advising a company director who was removed as a director following a successful appearance on the popular television programme – Dragon’s Den, as an ‘advocate’ for a company in which was an investor.
Tiffin v Chief Constable of Surrey  Benjamin was instructed on behalf of the Chief Constable in a 2 weeks multiple discrimination and highly contested claims, which attracted considerable national media attention. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4997256/Overweight-officer-quit-bleep-test-loses-case.html
Korshunova v Eiger Securities LLP  acted for the Respondent in a complex whistleblowing claim, dealing with amongst others the distinction between guidance and legal obligation; whether the same legal test applied to section 47B as well as section 103A claims.
Dr. Aranmolate v General Medical Council  advised Dr. A on his restoration application and subsequently represented him before GMC panel.
Groves v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust  Benjamin was instructed by the Respondent, against a serial litigant who alleged that closing a vacancy once sufficient applications was received, amounted to unlawful discrimination on grounds of his disability which allegedly made it difficult for him comply with the closing deadline.
Bampoe v Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust  represented a senior NHS executive in a four weeks complex equality rights and race discrimination claim, against a leading silk.
Ethos Communication Solutions (Services) Ltd v Mediadisc Ltd  successfully acted for the defendant in the County Court resisting a claim for breach of contract and substantial damage. A 60 months maintenance contract terminated after 9 months for breach of warranties.
Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust v Ugiagbe  UKEAT 0068_09_1305 acted for the Respondent on appeal on grounds of failure to explain why inferences of discrimination could be drawn from facts found proved. The PCT was represented by a leading silk.
Stewart v British Transport Police  ET, Benjamin successfully represented the British Transport Police in a five weeks, complex multi-discrimination claim (35 substantive claims of sex, sexual orientation, disability discrimination and ‘whistleblowing’) 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 5 weeks in the Employment Tribunal, and on appeal to the EAT
Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark (2004) ICR 884 CA, Times Law Report 09/04/04. Benjamin represented the Respondent from the employment tribunal to the Court of Appeal. This case is widely reported 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
Royal Mail 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.
Dr Reza v General Medical Council (1998); on Inference – in this case Benjamin acted for the Applicant. The case is authority for the proposition that in the absence of explanation from the GMC’s Professional Conduct Committee on primary facts of discrimination, Employment Tribunal is 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 on Contract – Benjamin acting for the local authority in a case that established the position that a teacher’s dismissal is sustainable even where it arose out of a failure to comply with statutory regime for such dismissal.