A solicitor who lost his employment tribunal claim against the Solicitors Regulation Authority after accusing the regulator of racism over restrictions on his practising certificate has been ordered to pay £20,000 towards the regulator's legal costs.
Adekunle Soyege brought complaints of direct age, race and disability discrimination against the SRA. The employment tribunal, sitting in Birmingham, found Soyege had a ‘genuine and strong belief’ he had been discriminated against - but that each allegation failed on the facts or because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
In a reserved judgment on costs, published this week, Employment Judge Flood accepted the SRA’s submissions that Soyege’s claims were 'baseless from the outset, and doomed to fail'.
The judge added: ‘[Soyege] knew or objectively should have known that the complaints had no reasonable prospects from the outset, particularly as although a litigant in person he is also a qualified solicitor. The allegations made by the claimant were no more than bare assertions with nothing to support them, so objectively had no reasonable prospect of success.
Read more
'He was unable to raise a prima facie case of discrimination, such as to cause the burden of proof to shift to the respondent to explain any of the treatment, with many of the claims simply being about decisions made against the claimant and the claimant possessing protected characteristics. Indeed the claimant was unable to show that one of the protected characteristics relied upon, i.e. disability even applied to him.
‘The claimant was in possession of clear documentary evidence explaining why decisions were made but still persisted again and again in saying that discrimination was the motive. Such complaints never had any reasonable prospect of succeeding.’
Soyege’s conduct was unreasonable ‘and indeed vexatious and disruptive’, the judgment said.
It added: ‘We agree with the submissions of the [SRA] that it is hard to think of a case so clear cut where the conduct has been so poor.'
Awarding £20,000 costs, the judge said the case was an ‘exceptional’ one as Soyege was an ‘intelligent and educated man who must have had some insight into the very significant challenges with the validity of his own claims.’
