Kate Gallafent

Kate is a member of the Attorney General’s B Panel and has a broad-based public and human rights law practice, with a particular emphasis on regulatory, prison and freedom of information law.  Her cases range from acting on behalf of Ann Summers Ltd in a successful challenge to Jobcentre Plus’ policy of banning their advertisements, to appearing on behalf of the Secretary of State in several House of Lords in cases concerning prisoners’ rights, to representing the Reverend Moon in his challenge to his (now-revoked) exclusion from the United Kingdom on grounds of public good.  She is regularly instructed by bodies such as the BBC, Ofcom, the General Medical Council, the Chartered Institute for Accountants in England and Wales and a number of Government Departments, as well as individual Claimants.  In addition to her regular appearances in the Administrative and Appellate Courts, she appears before Coroners, the Parole Board, and a wide range of other Tribunals.  She was junior counsel to the Bichard Inquiry into child protection procedures following Ian Huntley’s convictions for murder.

Kate will shortly be appearing (together with James Eadie QC) in a challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision not to hold a public inquiry into the 2007 disturbances at the Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre, which raises important issues of principle as to the scope of the investigatory obligation under Article 3, compared with that applicable under Article 2.

British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Information Commissioner [2008] EWCA Civ 191
Kate acted for the BBC (led by Monica Carss-Frisk QC) in the first case to reach the Court of Appeal under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  The appeal concerned an important issue of interpretation of the Act going to the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal, concerning the circumstances in which the BBC was a “public authority”.  The decision of High Court below (British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Information Commissioner [2007] EWHA 905 (Admin)) had also considered the issue of the meaning of the phrase “information held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature”.

Ministry of Defence v Information Commissioner & Rob Evans (20 July 2007, Information Tribunal)
Led by Jonathan Crow QC, Kate acted for the Ministry of Defence resisting disclosure of the staff directory Defence Export Services Organisation, on the grounds of national security, the effective conduct of public affairs, and data protection.

Re Jack Windsor-Monson (deceased) (February 2007)
Kate appeared in the Coroner’s Court on behalf of Norfolk County Council’s Social Services Department in an inquest which raised novel issues concerning the potential application of Article 2 to children in care.

Guardian & Brooke v Information Commissioner v British Broadcasting Corporation (Information Tribunal, 8 January 2007)
Kate appeared on behalf of the BBC (led by Monica Carss-Frisk QC) in this appeal which raised important issues of the application of s.36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information Act, concerning the disclosure of the minutes of the BBC Governors’ meeting following the publication of the Hutton Report.

Norman Girling v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Parole Board [2006] EWCA Civ 1779, [2007] QB 783 Acting for the Secretary of State for the Home Department (together with Monica Carss-Frisk QC), Kate appeared in this successful appeal against a challenge to the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to the Parole Board as to matters to be taken into account when discharging its duty to determine a life sentence prisoner’s release from prison.

General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, [2007] QB 462
Kate appeared on behalf of Professor Sir Roy Meadow in the GMC’s appeal concerning the issue of whether an expert medical witness had immunity from disciplinary proceedings in respect of evidence given in a criminal trial.

R (Hammond) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 69, [2006] 1 AC 603
Kate appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State (led by Jonathan Crow QC) in a challenge to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 concerning the setting of the minimum term of existing mandatory life prisoners without an oral hearing as being incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention.

R (Roberts) v The Parole Board & Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 45, [2005] 2 AC 738
Kate was instructed by the Secretary of State (together with James Eadie QC) in relation to a challenge to the Parole Board’s powers to withhold from a prisoner evidence from a source who would be at risk if his identity was disclosed, and to use a specially appointed advocate procedure and its compatibility with Article 5.  She continues to act in relation to the subsequent Parole Board proceedings, and the ongoing legal challenges to them.

Plymouth City Council v HM Coroner for Devon & Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2005] EWHC 1014 (Admin)
Kate appeared on behalf of the intervener in a case concerning the trigger for the investigative duty under Article 2 in relation to the role of the child protection agencies in the death of a child.

Mogos v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 611, The Times 25 January 2006
Kate represented the Secretary of State in an appeal concerning the limits of an immigration judge’s jurisdiction on a claim that had been remitted to him on appeal.

Chun Lan Liu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 249, The Times 15 April 2005. 
Kate appeared in the Court of Appeal in a case concerning whether persons fleeing the impact of China’s “one child policy” constituted a particular social group for the purposes of the Refugee convention.  Although the subject of conflicting jurisprudence in Commonwealth jurisdictions, this issue had not previously been considered in the English courts. 

The Reverend Moon v Entry Clearance Officer, Seoul (March 2005)
Kate Gallafent and David Pannick QC appeared before an Immigration Adjudicator on behalf of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (and in March 2005, before the IAT) in a challenge to the decision of the Home Secretary to exclude the Rev. Moon from the United Kingdom. The proceedings raised an important point of principle as to the circumstances in which rights under the European Convention on Human Rights are engaged as regards a person who is physically outside the United Kingdom. 

Gusinsky v Russia (European Court of Human Rights Appn. no. 70276/01, Judgment 19.5.04)
Kate acted for Vladimir Gusinskiy, the media oligarch, in his successful claim against the Russian Federation for breaching his rights under Articles 5 and 18.

R (Ann Summers Ltd) v Jobcentre Plus [2003] EWHC 1416 (Admin), The Times 14.7.03
Kate succeeded in overturning Jobcentre Plus’ policy of banning Ann Summers’ recruitment advertisements on the grounds of perversity.

Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4, [2003] 1 AC 1163
Together with David Pannick QC, Kate represented the Ministry of Defence in successfully defending a challenge to the compatibility with Article 6 of the provisions of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 providing for the issue of a certificate barring an ex-serviceman’s personal injury claim against the Ministry of Defence

R v Broadcasting Standards Commission ex parte BBC [2001] QB 885
Kate also appeared as junior to David Pannick QC in this case concerning a company’s right to privacy, and whether secret filming in a place readily accessible by the public can be an infringement of that right.

She is a contributor to Human Rights Law and Practice edited by Lester & Pannick, and Administrative Court: Practice and Procedure edited by Lang.

Kate has extensive Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and High Court experience in a broad range of cases concerning unfair dismissal, redundancy, TUPE, and race, sex and disability discrimination, restrictive covenants / garden leave and share options.  Examples of her work include successfully defending the Medical Research Council in a substantial race discrimination claim said to be worth £7.5 million, acting on behalf of an employee in a very high profile sex discrimination claim against American Express, and appearing on behalf of Capital Radio in a number of cases brought by DJs who claimed to be employees rather than self-employed contractors.

She has particular expertise on the application of human rights and data protection in the context of the employment relationship.

Kate is currently instructed together with Dinah Rose QC in a large discrimination claim based on gender reassignment and sexual orientation.

Last year they also worked together for a major city law firm in a disability discrimination claim concerning a partnership dispute.

Other recent cases include:

Colin Burns v Extec Screens and Crushers Ltd
Kate acted on behalf of a senior Managing Director in High Court and Employment Tribunal proceedings concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and contract.

Young & Rubicam v Eccleshare
Kate was instructed together with Paul Goulding QC on behalf of a senior advertising executive in High Court proceedings concerning the enforceability of the restrictive covenants and garden leave provisions in his contract.

Bamsey v Albion Engineering Ltd (2003) ICR 1224
Kate acted for the Defendant in an important test case concerning the calculation of weekly pay under the Working Time Regulations.

Brennan v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2003] EAT/0623/02
Kate succeeding in overturning the decision of the Employment Tribunal, on the grounds of procedural irregularity, that Mrs Brennan had not been discriminated against in circumstances where American Express had admitted certain acts of discrimination but the Tribunal had gone behind those admissions.

Kate has acted for and advised a wide range of clubs and governing bodies in the field of tennis, athletics, cricket, rugby, snooker and canoeing.  Her experience includes cases raising such wide-ranging issues as doping, child protection, the employment status of professional cricketers under the standard English Cricket Board / Professional Cricketers Association contracts, competition law and restraint of trade (she appeared in Hendry & Williams v The World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, the first case to be decided substantively under the Competition Act 1998).

Lawrence Dallaglio
Kate acted for Lawrence Dallaglio in his recent citing hearing, just weeks before his retirement.

Apoua Stewart v Rugby Football Union
Kate acted for the RFU in disciplinary proceedings which raised a wide range of issues, including the meaning of the phrase “intent to enhance sporting performance”, and what is required to benefit from a reduced sanction based on having given “substantial assistance” which results in the discovery or establishment of an anti-doping rule violation by another person, under the WADA Code.

Jason Keyter v Rugby Football Union
Kate acted for the RFU in disciplinary proceedings against a professional rugby player found guilty of having taken cocaine.  The case raised issues of the proper interpretation of the World Anti-Doping Code and subsequently went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Hendry & Williams v The World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association [2001] EuLR 770
Kate acted on behalf of the governing body for snooker in a challenge to its rules on the basis for the doctrine of restraint of trade and competition law.  The case was the first to be substantively decided under the Competition Act 1998.

Towcester Racecourse Company Ltd v Racecourse Association Ltd [2002] EWHC 2141 (Ch), [2003] 1 BCLC 260
Kate appeared with Michael Beloff QC on behalf of the Racecourse Association in successfully defending a claim based on breaches of duties allegedly implied into its articles of association in respect of alleged misconduct of an enquiry during negotiations for the sale of media rights.

Kate has been involved in various cases in this area, for example, a copyright claim concerning The Full Monty, a breach of contract claim in relation to the production and maintenance of puppet’s for a children’s animated television series, and a case concerning the disclosure of journalist’s sources in relation to confidential legal documents, and a breach of confidence and copyright claim in relation to a computer database.  She has advised on data protection in the context of research for television programmes.

Kate has been involved in a wide range of general commercial disputes including regulated credit agreements, sale of goods, factoring, partnership disputes, conversion, and agency agreements.

Kate was led by Barbara Dohmann QC in Lubbe, Nel, Afrika and others v Cape Plc (Court of Appeal [2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 139), a forum non conveniens dispute involving some 3,000 South African mineworkers suffering from asbestosis.

Other substantial commercial cases in which she has been led are Kingscroft & Others v Nissan (Commercial Court [1999] Lloyds I&R 603) concerning avoidance of reinsurance contracts on the grounds of non-disclosure and misrepresentation; and Worldwide v GPT (Court of Appeal) concerning late amendment of pleadings and case management.

Previous experience:

After obtaining the top First in her year at Cambridge, Kate became a Fast-stream Administrative Trainee in the Department for Education and Employment.  She worked extensively on the passage through Parliament of the Disability Discrimination Bill and on Government policy for children with Special Educational Needs.