Times Lawyer of the Week/Arfan Khan

Times Lawyer of the Week 2009,

Times Lawyer of the Week/Arfan Khan

“Arfan Khan, a barrister at the Chambers of Mark Littman, QC, acted for Geert Wilders. The controversial Dutch MP was barred from entry to the UK to address the House of Lords in February. That bar was overturned by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and he has now visited the UK”: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lawyer-of-the-week-arfan-khan-hc9m5ftnhnt

Arfan Khan is a leading Chancery, Commercial & Public Law Barrister, practising predominantly in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and the High Court in a broad range of Chancery, Commercial Public and International Law Disputes.

Selective reported cases:

• Yadly Marketing v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] 1 WLR 1041.
• SA Builders & Contractors Ltd v Holm [2016] EWCA Civ 712.
• Axia FX Ltd v RBS (2012-2016).
• Anami Holdings v Gill [2014] EWHC 3800 (Ch).
• Bank of Ireland v Gill [2014] B.P.I.R. 156.
• Gaurilcikiene v Tesco Stores Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1612.
• Chilab v King’s College London & Anor [2013] 2 Costs L.R. 191.
• Bank of Ireland v Jaffery and Gill [2012] EWHC 1377 (Ch);  CA.
• Integral Memory Plc v Haines Watts [2012] S.T.I.1385.
• Nortel Networks UK Ltd (In Administration) v Unite the Union [2010] 2 B.C.L.C. 674.
• Chamberlin v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2010] S.T.C.2782; [2011] S.T.C.1237.
• Osuji v Holmes [2011] R.V.R. 228; Times, April 19, 2011.
• Attorney General of St Lucia & The Judicial Legal Services Commission v Horace Fraser [2009] 2
LRC 26 (PC).
• Attorney General of Zambia v MCD [2008] Lloyd’s Rep FC 587.
• Day v Haine [2008] B.C.C.845.

• Benkharbouche v Embassy of Sudan, 4A Law & Others intervening [2015] I.R.L.R 301 (CA).
• Almalki v Reyes, 4A Law & Others intervening [2015] I.R.L.R. 289.
• R (on the application of Geller) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] All ER (D)
54.
• Wokuri v Kassam [2013] Ch 80.
• Geert Wilders (Netherlands) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] I.N.L.R 337.

Arfan Khan successful in insolvency appeal

Chancery barrister, Commercial lawyer, Court of Appeal, EU law, Insolvency barrister, Insolvency Law/Provable Debts, Insolvency/Chancery, , , ,

Arfan Khan successful in insolvency Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that protective awards were debts provable in the liquidation.

The first instance judge had regarded himself as bound by Glenister v Rowe ([2000] Ch 76) and R (Steele) v Birmingham City Council ([2006] ICR 869). He held that the tribunal had a discretion not to make the awards, and therefore the awards were not provable. This was held to be the case even though it was submitted on behalf of the employees that the tribunal had no such discretion.

The appeal was allowed for two interlinked reasons: (i) as a matter of language, the liability to pay a protective award stemmed from the preliquidation breach of obligation, and (ii) given the complete breach of the obligation to consult, the employment tribunal realistically did not have a discretion to refuse an award. Under EC Directive 98/59, the tribunal was duty bound to make the awards. An employment law analysis of the case, based on Directive 98/59/EC and Susie Radin Ltd v GMB ([2004] ICR 893), provided a powerful basis upon which to distinguish both Glenister and Steele.

Arfan Khan appeared for the successful employee representative.

Status of Protective Awards