Employment Appeal Tribunal
HELD: Agency was not a concept of ordinary language. The terms "agent" and "principal" in the Acts referred to agency at common law. The only change when considering the application of those principals to the statutes was that, in the Acts, both the principal and the agent were liable in discrimination. In contrast, under the Regulations, officers within the police force were given various responsibilities. The Regulations prohibited the chief officer from carrying out the duties of an investigating officer or from delegating those duties. Thus, the chief officer was not to be involved in any case in which he had an interest; thereby preserving both actual and apparent impartiality. Although the chief officer was required to appoint investigating and supervising officers, thereafter those officers carried out the functions prescribed for them by the Regulations. By definition, they did not act on behalf of the chief officer. The Regulations imposed public law duties. Accordingly, the only remedy was by way of judicial review, R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police ex p Bennion (2001) EWCA Civ 638 , (2001) ACD 515 applied. Investigating and supervising officers under the Regulations did not act as agents of the chief officer for the purposes of claims made under the Acts.
 ICR 1660
"The ‘capable, efficient, and helpful’ clerks’ room provides ‘a service-orientated approach and goes above and beyond in trying to ensure you have the right barrister for the job ; you have the utmost confidence in the clerking”
"An extremely approachable set of chambers which puts a premium on service delivery"
Dear all, During a challenging time for both Chambers and our clients, we have taken the necessary steps to operate…
“Life is a matter of choices, and every choice you make makes you” – John C. Maxwell In law, capacity…View More