Kate Gallafent

Kate is a member of the Attorney General’s A 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.

Data Protection / Freedom of Information

Examples of her work in the data protection and freedom of information sphere include advising the GMC on disclosure of Case Examiners’ names and sharing information about medical students, as well as a number of appearances in the Information Tribunal, both led and un-led, on behalf of various Government Departments, the BBC and Ofcom.

• R (NM) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 1816 (Admin)
  Kate appeared successfully for the Secretary of State in a challenge brought by a prisoner with learning difficulties who challenged the adequacy of a prison investigation into a sexual assault on him.  The case raised several wide-ranging issues including disability discrimination, the scope of Article 3 of the Convention and the proper interpretation and application of a number of Prison Service Orders.
• R (AM and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA 219, (2009) ACD 38, The Times 20 March 2009
  Kate acted for the Secretary of State (led by James Eadie QC) in defending a challenge to his refusal to instigate a public inquiry following the disturbance at Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre.  The case considered the scope of the investigative obligation under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, upon which they were previously no decided domestic authority.  Kate is currently instructed for the United Kingdom in relation to the claimants’ subsequent application to the European Court of Human Rights.
• BBC v Sugar & Information Commissioner [2009] UKHL 9, [2009] 1 WLR 430; [2009] EWHC 2348 (Admin), [2010] EWCA Civ 715, [2010] 1 WLR 2278
  Kate acts on behalf of the BBC (led by Monica Carss-Frisk QC) in this important case concerning the circumstances in which the BBC falls within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.  The case went to the House of Lords (the first case to do so under that Act) on the issue of whether the Information Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear Mr Sugar’s appeal against the Information Commissioner’s finding that the BBC did not fall within the scope of the Act.  Having held that it did, the matter was remitted to the High Court on the issue of whether the information requested by Mr Sugar fell within the Act (that is, whether it was held for the purposes of journalism, art and literature).  The High Court allowed the BBC’s appeal on the issue (which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal) and Mr  Sugar's appeal to the Supreme Court is due to be heard on 23/24 November 2011.
• R (Roberts) v The Parole Board & secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 2714 , Harry Roberts (Parole Board, 22 July 2009)
  Kate has been instructed in relation to Harry Roberts’ ongoing detention since 2005.  Most recently she appeared in the High Court (where she was led by James Eadie QC) in his challenge to the Parole Board’s use of its powers to withhold evidence from a prisoner and adopt a specially appointed advocate procedure, and she subsequently appeared (un-led) before the Parole Board at the substantive review of his detention, which resulted in the Board declining to direct his release or recommend a transfer to open conditions due to his risk of violence.
• Suresh Deman v Independent Press Complaints Committee [2008] EWHC 3482 (Admin); 24 July 2009, HHJ Collins, Central London County Court; 20 June 2011, Holroyde J., QBD)
  Kate acted for the Independent Press Complaints Committee in connection with claims brought against it by Mr Deman concerning the way in which it dealt with his complaints over the press reporting of the vexatious litigant order made against him.  She successfully defended Mr Deman’s challenge by way judicial review in the Administrative Court as well as his claim for race discrimination in context of goods and services in the County Court.

Data Protection / Freedom of Information

• BBC v Sugar & Information Commissioner [2009] UKHL 9, [2009] 1 WLR 430; [2009] EWHC 2348 (Admin), [2010] EWCA Civ 715, [2010] 1 WLR 2278
  See above.
• Gerry Morrissey (BECTU) v Information Commissioner & Ofcom (EA/2009/0067)
  Kate acted for Ofcom in an appeal concerning a request for disclosure of statistical data provided to Ofcom broadcasters about their equal opportunities monitoring.  The appeal raised important issues about the construction of Communications Act 2003 and the extent to Ofcom’s policy decisions as to how to fulfil its statutory functions are effectively reviewable by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act by the Information Commissioner or Information Tribunal.
• Civil Aviation Authority v Information Tribunal & Malcolm Kirkaldie (Information Tribunal)
  Kate was instructed on behalf of the Civil Aviation Authority in its appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision that the disclosure of safety audits on an air operator would not be likely to prejudice the CAA’s ability to discharge its regulatory functions.

• Plymouth City Council v HM Coroner for Devon & Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2005] EWHC 1014 (Admin)
• Mogos v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 611, The Times 25 January 2006
• Chun Lan Liu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 249, The Times 15 April 2005.  
• The Reverend Moon v Entry Clearance Officer, Seoul (March 2005) 
• Gusinsky v Russia (European Court of Human Rights Appn. no. 70276/01, Judgment 19.5.04)
• R (Ann Summers Ltd) v Jobcentre Plus [2003] EWHC 1416 (Admin), The Times 14.7.03
• Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4, [2003] 1 AC 1163
• R v Broadcasting Standards Commission ex parte BBC [2001] QB 885

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 recently appeared on behalf of a West End law firm in a race and age discrimination claim brought against it by a former assistant solicitor.  The case involved serious allegations of professional misconduct.  The case was successfully defended in its entirety, and all the claims (including those of professional misconduct) were dismissed by the Tribunal.
• Nooh v General Medical Council (2011, London Central ET)
  Kate was instructed by the GMC in a case concerning the scope of the statutory scheme concerning unlawful discrimination by qualifying bodies, as well as the Tribunal’s jurisdiction where a possible statutory appeal or judicial review exists.
• Wildman v Medical Research Council (2008, London Central ET)
  Kate acted successfully on behalf of the Medical Research Council in a dispute over whether a PhD student engaged within a research unit was an employee for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act.  Permission to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was refused.
• Kate recently worked together with Dinah Rose QC in a large discrimination claim based on gender reassignment and sexual orientation, as well as acting for a major city law firm in a disability discrimination claim concerning a partnership dispute.

• 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
• Brennan v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2003] EAT/0623/02

She is a contributor to Employee Competition (edited by Goulding) on the subject of garden leave.

Kate is regularly instructed by a number of professional bodies in relation to disciplinary matters, including the General Medical Council, the Institute for Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Rugby Football Union and the Lawn Tennis Association as well as for individuals facing disciplinary charges.

• Dr Jeff Wooller (2009)
  Kate appeared on behalf of the Institute for Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in disciplinary proceedings against a member for his involvement in organisations which sold ‘bogus’ degrees, an investigation into which was prompted by an undercover report by the BBC.  Dr Wooller was excluded from membership of the Institute and fined £20,000.
• Sharief v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 847 (Admin), (2009) LS Law Medical 389
  Kate was instructed on behalf of the GMC to defend an appeal brought by a doctor who had been found guilty of dishonesty in the context of research into multiple sclerosis.  As well as being very factually complex the case raised a range of issues concerning the proper approach of the Court on such an appeal, the test for impaired fitness to practice, and the effect of section 47 of the Medical Act (which may effectively terminate the contract of a practitioner upon his suspension by the GMC) on the proportionality of such a sanction.
• Ethical Standards Officer v Patrick Joyce (The Adjudication Panel for England, APE 0445, 17 December 2009)
  Kate acted for a local councillor facing allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct arising from his involvement in meetings with officials concerning a fellow councillor’s planning application.   The case was something of a local cause celebre involving 3 other councillors, involved unusually lengthy and hard fought hearings before the President of the Adjudication Panel for England.

• Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1390; [2007] QB 462
  Kate acted for Professor Sir Roy Meadow, led by Nicola Davies QC

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).  She was instructed on behalf of the Rugby Football Union in high profile proceedings concerning disputed payments from the British and Irish Lions Tour of New Zealand in 2005 and the relationship between the RFU and Premiership Clubs.  She is a member of the ECB’s Child Protection Appeals Panel.

• Karena Wihongi v Rugby Football Union; Nico Steenkamp v Rugby Football Union (30 March 2011)
  Kate appeared for the RFU in two related prosecutions for anti-doping violations arising from contaminated nutritional supplements.  The decisions received widespread media coverage and prompted some controversy within the world of rugby. 
• International Tennis Federation v Richard Gasquet (Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne, CAS 2009/A/1926, Award December 2009)
  Kate was instructed (together with Adam Lewis QC) on behalf of the player Richard Gasquet in the appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport brought by the International Tennis Federation and World Anti-Doping Association against the length of the ban imposed on him for inadvertent contamination with cocaine as a result of kissing a girl in a night club in Miami.  The appeal raised fundamental issues concerning the principle of proportionality under the WADA Code, as well as the tests for a finding of no fault or negligence or significant fault or negligence.  CAS rejected the appellants' argument that the length of the ban should be increased and actually reduced it, accepting instead the player's argument that he had in fact acted with no fault or negligence.
• Chima v Lawn Tennis Association  [2008] EWHC 2498 (Admin)
  Kate acted on behalf of the Lawn Tennis Association in relation to disciplinary proceedings against a licensed coach.  The proceedings gave rise to a judicial review, a large number of satellite civil claims, as well as an appeal to Sport Resolutions UK.  The proceedings raised questions of arbitration law as well as child protection and discrimination law.
• Lawrence Dallaglio
  Kate acted for Lawrence Dallaglio in his only 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
  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.

She is a contributor to Sport: Law and Practice (edited by Lewis and Taylor).

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.

Other Information:

VAT registration number:  718689091