Philip Engelman

Year of Call: 1979

PRACTICE AREAS

Commercial Law | Discrimination & Equality | Employment | Human Rights | Regulatory

HIGHLIGHTS

Involved in many leading cases over the years in the House of Lords, Privy Council, the Court of Appeal and the High Court. "A true expert in judicial reviews" Legal 500 2014, "a heavyweight in judicial review cases" Legal 500 2013, "A formidable strategist and a persuasive advocate." Legal 500 2011

Overview

Philip Engelman has been in practice for 30 years. During that time he has represented clients from both the domestic and international arena, including private individuals; companies; local government; central government; major bodies, including the Royal College of Nursing, the Law Society, the Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants, the Official Solicitor, GMB, NALGO (now UNISON), Unite and other public bodies.

He has appeared in the House of Lords; Privy Council; Court of Appeal; Divisional Court; Administrative Court; all divisions of the High Court, including the Commercial Court; the Technology and Construction Court; and many Tribunals including in particular the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Care Standards Tribunal, SENDSIT, GMC, FHSAA, NMC, SDT and ACCA.

He has been heavily involved in many equal pay cases, including Marilyn Brennan & Others v Sunderland City Council & Others, which involved five years' worth of litigation and concluded in the Court of Appeal. He has also been involved in Hartlepool Borough Council v Dolphin; Reddy v Bedfordshire NHS Trust; Birch v Walsall MBC; Pennine Acute NHS Trust v Power; and Prest v Moucher Business Services Ltd.

Philip Engelman also acts regularly in the more general areas of Employment law, such as unfair dismissal, breach of contract, discrimination, TUPE as well as contractual claims and injunctive relief in the High Court.

Litigation includes the Hickey miscarriage of justice award before the House of Lords (O'Brien v The Independent Adjudicator); whether a GP's place on a local Performers List is Article 1/Protocol 1 Property - also before the House of Lords (Countryside Alliance); Doctor's discipline before the Privy Council (Dr. Obi v GMC); the admissibility of findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal into Chancery proceedings - Court of Appeal (Simms v Colon & another); local disciplinary powers over GPs - Court of Appeal (Dr. Malik v Waltham Forest NHS Trust); the extent of the GMC's disciplinary powers over doctors - Court of Appeal (Hiew v GMC); legal professional privilege - EAT (Brennan (No. 3)); the interpretation of domestic law by reference to the EU treaty - EAT (Brennan (No. 1)); the requirement of consultation by a local authority and its equality duties - Admin Court (R (Barwick & another) v Bridgend CBC); the ambit of the disciplinary process of the FHSAA over a GP - Admin Court (Neath and Port Talbot LHB v Dr. Gilbey); the operation of the deeming provisions in the National Assistance Act 1948 - Admin Court (R (Cardiff CC) v Welsh Assembly Government); the construction of the standard form insurance contract governing environmental pollution - QBD (Bartoline v Royal Sun Alliance); and construction of a contract concerning the Olympic Games - QBD (Balcome v London Development Agency).

Over the years he has been involved in much high profile litigation, and his clients have included those who have suffered miscarriage of justice; those on death row in the Caribbean and elsewhere; animal rights groups; ethnic minority Bar students; and more prosaically, international tennis players. He has acted in many cases involving community care, school admissions, school closures; disciplinary, regulatory and employment cases, in particular many of the current substantial cases concerning equal pay.

More recently, he acted for Unite's Convenor in the Grangemouth dispute between Unite and Petroineos, in which interim relief was obtained, reinstating the Claimant. The case was settled at trial. He currently acts on behalf of Unite in the Remploy litigation, which concerns the closure of Remploy factories, which had been set up to employ the disabled. He is also acting in an equal pay multiple: Abraityte v 2 Sisters Food Group. He has also acted recently for a well-known theatre critic who was dismissed by the Sunday Express: Shenton v Sunday Express and in a maternity discrimination case concerning breastfeeding in public at a well-known maternity store: Lunt v Kiddicare.

In the field of judicial review, he has been involved recently in a number of cases concerning the setting of care home fee rates: R (on the application of South Tyneside Care Home Owners) v South Tyneside Council; Care North East v Newcastle City Council; and domiciliary care rates: R (Kemble Care) v Herefordshire Council. He has also been involved in cases concerning the confiscation of Jewish gold during the 2nd World War: R (Sundstrom) v Adjudicator of EPCAP; Safeguarding: R (Bushby) North Yorkshire County Council; and the enforcement of Orders made in judicial review proceedings: R (Ellis) v Chief Constable of Cumbria.

He is also acting or has acted in a number of cases involving human rights: Hughes v Ministry of Justice, relating to the exhumation of George Kelly, who was hanged for the Cameo Cinema murders in 1950. Corbett & Others v HMP Gartee and others the contaminated halal food products for prisoners. Lakeminster Park Ltd & Others v East Riding of Yorkshire Council, the closure of a caravan park site and the human rights of its residents.

This year, 2017, Philip Engelman has been involved in the following litigation: R(Ian Brady) v Lord Chancellor and others [2017] EWHC 410 (Admin) - Judicial Review proceedings concerning the late Ian Brady; Grange v Abellio London Ltd [2017] I.C.R. 287 – successful challenge to the application of the Working Time Regulations; Crossley v VW and others – the VW Diesel litigation; The 2 Sisters Equal Pay litigation; Azimi v Zafaran Limited and others – IPEC and Chancery High Court litigation concerning the ownership London nightclubs; Bethel v Bar Standards Board [2017] EWHC 3072 (Admin) – High Court and Court of Appeal – case from the Bahamas concerning the striking off of a barrister; Garnham v Bar Standards Board [2017] EWHC 1139 (Admin) – disqualification proceedings concerning a barrister; Dotcom v Legal Ombudsman – Judicial Review proceedings concerning the ambit of the Legal Ombudsman's powers (scheduled for hearing March 2018); Broughal v Walsh – Court of Appeal - the effect of a Judge refusing permission on paper and then hearing the substantive appeal (scheduled for May 2018); Samadpour v Jackson and Canter – Data Protection and Confidential Information; Lavelle v BBH – Professional Negligence of solicitors relating to a murder; Szulc v Charlemagne Capital Limited – hedge-fund trader and employment (scheduled for EAT February 2018).

References

Recommended in education and public law by The Legal 500.

Appointments and memberships

Crown Court Recorder 2012
Equality and Human Rights Commission Preferred Panel of Counsel
Membership

Constitutional & Administrative Bar Association
Employment Law Bar Association
Professional Negligence Bar Association
Member of the Equality and Diversity Committee of the Bar Council

Publications and training

Author of:

Commercial Judicial Review Sweet and Maxwell (2000)

The Care Standards Act 2000. OUP (2003)

Bullen and Leake's Precedents - (Education), Sweet & Maxwell (2009)

Challenging Racism: Using the Human Rights Act (Education), Lawrence & Wishart (2001)

Highlight cases

Dr Hayat v GMC - April 2014 - High Court - reduced the doctor's period of interim suspension because of the blanket approach taken by teh GMC which was deprecated
Lyon v Ineos Petroleum: the Grangemought Dispute - November 2014 (Trade Union activities)
Unite & 1660 Others v Remploy Ltd :2015 - ongoing. Closure of Remploy factories which employed the disabled
Shenton v Sunday Express: August 2014 - dismissal of well known theatre critic - sexual orientation discrimination
Brennan & 1000 Others v Sunderland City Council and others - 2012 - Statutory equal pay case argued over 5 years - and five appeals to the EAT on various points of law and an appeal to the Court of Appeal