Claimant cannot sue firm over report to SRA, rules tribunal

A law firm employee cannot bring claims for discrimination and victimisation on the basis of a report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, an employment tribunal has ruled. 

Employment Judge Danvers dismissed an application by the claimant to include the referral to the SRA in her details of claim.

The claimant has brought multiple claims against international firm Trowers & Hamlins, alleging constructive unfair dismissal, direct discrimination on the grounds of disability, a failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability related harassment and victimisation.

A final hearing on liability is set for later this year, but a preliminary hearing was required to decide whether or not the claimant was prevented from bringing claims in respect of the firm’s referral of her to the SRA.

The claimant, who was based in the Exeter office, complained that referring her to the SRA in December 2023 was an act of direct disability discrimination and/or victimisation. The firm said its referral was covered by judicial proceedings immunity and so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

The judge said it was clear from case law that those who brought a complaint to the police were protected from suit. She added that the principle of JPI clearly extended to regulatory proceedings in front of the SRA, as well as criminal proceedings.

Lawyers for the claimant submitted that JPI should not operate to prevent employees from being able to pursue claims that would otherwise be caught under the Equality Act 2010. It was accepted that JPI would apply to formal complaints to the SRA, but it was argued by the claimant that this did not apply in the circumstances of this case.

The complaint had been emailed to an employee at the SRA with a subject ‘private and confidential’. The email explained that an individual was suspected of acting dishonestly but that they were ‘fairly vulnerable’ and so the firm had decided not to name them to protect their mental health and wellbeing. The report said it had been sent with the consent of the firm’s compliance officer and asked the SRA if it would require more information.

The judge said this constituted a formal report to the regulator and that JPI applied to the sending of the email.

‘There is no suggestion that the matter is being raised "informally",’ she said. ‘It is not sent via the "reporting e[1]mail", but the reason for that is given in the email. A report of what has happened is provided and it is clear from the final sentence that there is an expectation that the SRA will take action on the report.’

The judge said the claimant could make complaints of victimisation and discrimination in respect of her employment and working conditions to the employment tribunal, but not about acts covered by JPI. The application to make this amendment to the claim was refused.