Solicitor’s claim withdrawal ‘left no room for doubt’, employment tribunal finds

A solicitor who argued that an email he sent withdrawing his employment tribunal claim was a ‘miscommunication’ has had his claim dismissed.

A preliminary hearing, heard at Cardiff before employment judge Ezra Macdonald, centred on whether Yahya Wiseman should be permitted to withdraw his withdrawal of the claim. Wiseman brought ‘a number’ of complaints against Neathouse Partners Limited and Sayeem Ahmed.

Before the preliminary hearing, Wiseman emailed the tribunal in which he said: ‘Due to personal reasons, I have decided to withdraw my claim in full and no longer wish to proceed any further with this case.’

On 2 August last year the tribunal acknowledged receipt of the email, which had been sent on 9 July, and vacated the hearing. Wiseman, who represented himself, sent a response on the same day which said: ‘This is a misunderstanding apologies, withdrawal application was taken back and my understanding was that tribunal still going ahead.’

A follow-up email added: ‘It appears there has been a miscommunication and misunderstanding regarding my claim. I want to clarify that I am not withdrawing my claim. I have requested that the tribunal hearing be rescheduled if the 7th of August is not available.’

The judge said Wiseman ‘unequivocally wrote to withdraw his claim on 9 July 2024. The words used were clear and left no room for doubt.

‘In oral evidence the claimant asserted that he was not thinking straight at the point at which he withdrew his claim. He said that his intention had not been to withdraw.’

Wiseman’s evidence ‘was not credible’ and ‘not consistent’, the judge said.

He added: ‘When asking the tribunal for the case to be closed, the claimant must, in my view, have understood that the case would come to an end. At the material time, the claimant was in work. If he was competent to be advising others at the time, then he was competent to understand what he himself was doing. I carefully considered his written evidence, but concluded that his level of disability was not as significant as his written evidence implied. In particular, I concluded that he did not lack understanding of his actions.

‘The clearly-articulated withdrawal decision, and the fact that he was at work at the material time, combined with the oral explanation for the decision (in terms, that it was a response to excessive stress) suggest that this was a clear example of a rational decision reflecting the stresses that he was under at the time.’

Dismissing Wiseman’s claim, the judge said the ‘material available amounted to a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal withdrawal’.

He added: ‘The claimant’s decision was neither ill-considered nor irrational. Any attempt to re-litigate the same case through a fresh set of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. In plain terms, Mr Wiseman had withdrawn his claim. None of the specified exceptions applies. Dismissal must therefore follow.’