An apprentice-solicitor has been heavily criticised for the conduct of an employment tribunal claim against Mishcon de Reya, which was dismissed.

Employment tribunal

Source: iStock

Employment judge Pavel Klimov said Forzana Khanom showed a ‘complete and utter disregard’ of the tribunal’s process and took a ‘wholly disproportionate time from the limited tribunal’s resources’.

Dismissing the claim for non-attendance, the judge said the case was a ‘prime example’ of when the employment tribunal ‘should exercise its strike out powers’, adding: ‘In fact, in my view, not striking out the claimant’s claim…would be a perverse decision’.

He said: ‘The claimant’s persistent, long-lasting and egregious disregard of the tribunal’s orders and her failure to engage with the process, [showed] a complete and utter disrespect to the respondent and the tribunal, bordering on contempt.’

Khanom, who lodged the claim against London firm Mishcon de Reya, failed to comply with orders made following a case management hearing, including that she provide medical evidence and disclose documents. She blamed her former solicitors, who had come off the record,  her ill health, and technical problems with her laptop, the judgment said.

The judge found Khanom’s reasons for non-compliance ‘wholly unpersuasive and insufficient to excuse the claimant’s repeated and continued failure to abide by the tribunal orders’.

He said: ‘The claimant showed a complete and utter disregard to the tribunal’s process. She caused the respondent to incur substantial and unnecessary costs, and all that due to her failure to engage with her own claim.

‘She took a wholly disproportionate time from the limited tribunal’s resources, with at least six employment judges having to deal with her case at various stages. At the same time, she barely exerted any effort herself to progress her case.

‘It appears she aspires to join this profession. Therefore, she would (or at any rate – should) be aware of the importance to follow due legal process, and how she should conduct herself towards her opponent and the tribunal. Her conduct of this case demonstrates the opposite of what could be expected of someone in her position.’