A solicitor, and employment tribunal specialist, has been ordered to pay £3,000 costs after he was found to have acted unreasonably in his conduct of a ‘wholly unmeritorious’ tribunal claim.
The solicitor, identified in the employment judgment as M Broomhead, brought claims of victimisation against six respondents including Peninsula Legal Services Limited, trading as Irwell Law. The employment tribunal judgment said Broomhead’s claim was primarily against barrister Charles Crow, who represented the firm and others, as well as the firm and the other four respondents.
Broomhead complained about Crow's conduct at a case management hearing. His claim was dismissed because the tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear it on the basis of judicial immunity from suit and as the claim ‘had no reasonable prospects of success’.
Employment judge Batten said ‘the claim had been pursued as a result of what the tribunal considered to be an irrational reaction to comments made by counsel for the respondents, at a case management preliminary hearing’. She added that Broomhead ‘should have realised’ the claim was ‘hopeless’ in terms of jurisdiction and of the prospects of success of a victimisation claim against an opponent’s representative and had the opportunity to withdraw it.
The judge said even after the claim was dismissed, Broomhead ‘displayed an intention to persist and has demonstrated that he has simply failed to understand why he has lost’.
Read more
Noting that Broomhead was not the 'average litigant in person' the judge continued: 'The claimant is a solicitor and holds himself out as an employment tribunal specialist. He is therefore more akin to a professional representative and the tribunal considered it appropriate to view him as such.’
The short judgment on costs said it was appropriate for the tribunal to exercise its discretion and award costs against Broomhead as a result of ‘his failure to heed any of the warnings or take the opportunity to withdraw in early course when, as a legal professional, the claimant must have understood the issues at stake, amounted to further unreasonable conduct’.
It added: ‘The claimant’s conduct put the respondents to expense and inconvenience.’
Awarded costs were limited to costs incurred from 10am onwards on the day of the preliminary hearing. Broomhead was ordered to pay £1,000 towards Crow’s costs and £2,000 towards the costs incurred by the firm and the four other respondents.
