Invictus Chambers

Invictus Chambers is a multi-disciplinary set of barristers chambers based in Temple, London and Bristol City Centre with expertise in civil, commercial, criminal, family law and immigration law litigation. As experts in their fields the barristers have acted as counsel in notable cases, including R (Oczelik) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 260 and McIntosh v McIntosh [2014] EWCA Civ 557, and regularly write publications on their areas of interest. The Chambers also offers public access and mediation services for clients. You can find out more about Invictus Chambers and the work that they do at or follow them on Twitter at @InvictusLawUK.

Recent Posts

Employment Tribunal fees ruled lawful

Posted by Invictus Chambers on 6 November 2015

Trisan Hyatt, tenant at Invictus Chambers, considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor and another (2015) EWCA Civ 935.

In January 2015 Unison, the public sector trade union, was granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal (“the court”) after the High Court dismissed UNISON’s second challenge to the lawfulness of the system of employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal fees introduced in July 2013.

Read More [fa icon="long-arrow-right"]

The Consumer Rights Act 2015

Posted by Invictus Chambers on 2 November 2015

In the first part of our review of the new Consumer Rights Act, Matthew Jackson, pupil at Invictus Chambers considers the revised rights of consumers and traders.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) provides a new code for business to consumer contracts in the United Kingdom. The key provisions came into force for contracts entered into on or after 1st October 2015. The act has two primary effects. The first provides new rights for certain contracts, particularly in relation to the sale of digital goods. Those new provisions will be covered in a future post.

Read More [fa icon="long-arrow-right"]

Whistleblowing and the public interest in contractual disputes

Posted by Invictus Chambers on 22 October 2015

Simao Paxi-Cato, barrister at Invictus Chambers, reviews the further guidance provided by the Employment Appeal Tribunal as to application of the public interest test in whistleblowing cases involving allegations of breach of contract.

Read More [fa icon="long-arrow-right"]

Does time spent travelling to work constitute work?

Posted by Invictus Chambers on 12 October 2015

Matthew Jackson, pupil barrister at Invictus Chambers, reviews a significant decision of the ECJ.

The European Court of Justice’s judgment in FSPC v Tyco C‑266/14 clarifies the position about whether time spent travelling to work constitutes “working time”. This is important when calculating rest breaks and the maximum number of hours in a working week.

Read More [fa icon="long-arrow-right"]

Case Commentary: Home Office (UK Border Agency v Essop and Ors (2015)

Posted by Invictus Chambers on 9 July 2015

Ariane Adam, tenant at Invictus Chambers, on when section 19 Equality Act 2010 may form the basis of a successful discrimination claim against an employer.

The Court of Appeal in Home Office (UK Border Agency) v Essop and ors [2015] EWCA Civ 609 (22 June 2015) has given important guidance on how an Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) should approach claims for indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.

Read More [fa icon="long-arrow-right"]

Legislation Review: The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (Part I)

Posted by Invictus Chambers on 18 June 2015

In the first part of Invictus Chambers' review of the 2015 Act, Nadeem Aullybocus and Amiee Parkes, criminal barrister and pupil at Invictus Chambers, examine two key sections of the legislation.

New Offences

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 has introduced a number of new offences including the offence of “Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress” pursuant to s33 (1).

Read More [fa icon="long-arrow-right"]

Case Comment: Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2015)

Posted by Invictus Chambers on 12 June 2015

In Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2015] UKSC 34 the Supreme Court considered whether the respondent local authority were entitled to be satisfied that the appellant, Ms Haile, became homeless intentionally in circumstances in which she had voluntarily surrendered a tenancy of a room in a hostel for single women but had applied to the authority for accommodation after giving birth to a child.

Part 7 Housing Act 1996 governs the provision by local authorities of assistance to homeless persons. By section 191(1) of the 1996 act ‘a person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.’ By virtue of section 193(1) of the act, local authorities have a duty to secure accommodation where they are ‘satisfied that an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has priority need, and are not satisfied that he became homeless intentionally.’

Read More [fa icon="long-arrow-right"]

Case Comment: Swift 1st Limited v The Chief Land Registrar (2015) – The Right To An Indemnity under the Land Registration Act 2002

Posted by Invictus Chambers on 9 June 2015

In Swift 1st Limited v The Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 330, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider the circumstances in which a proprietor of a registered charge, which is subsequently shown to have been brought about as a result of a forged disposition, is entitled to be indemnified under Schedule 8, Land Registration Act 2002 (“LRA 2002”) where the registered proprietor and rightful owner is in actual occupation at the date of the disposition.

Read More [fa icon="long-arrow-right"]

Subscribe to Email Updates