A lawyer has been ordered to pay £20,000 costs by the employment tribunal after she conducted her claim in a ‘vexatious, abusive, disruptive and unreasonable manner’.
Faith Rivers brought claims alleging whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination, harassment and breach of contract against Medway Council, where she worked as a locum within the place team legal department.
Her claims were dismissed in full in April this year following a tribunal hearing. The written reasons ‘make clear that the claimant lacked credibility and reliability’, the costs judgment said.
In November 2021, the local authority made an offer to Rivers to settle her case for £500 ‘whilst making it clear that they believed her claims were misconceived and had no reasonable prospects of success’. The offer was not accepted by Rivers who replied with a counter offer for either £75,500 plus two months’ contractual notice or reinstatement and back pay to date. The counter offer was not accepted.
Employment judge Liz Ord said it was ‘unreasonable of the claimant to continue the proceedings after she had received the settlement offer in November 2021’ and Rivers’ counter offer was ‘wholly unrealistic’. She added that the lawyer’s claims had no reasonable prospect of success. Rivers acted ‘vexatiously, abusively, disruptively and unreasonably in the way she conducted the proceedings’, the judgment said.
Read more
It added: ‘The manner in which the proceedings were conducted was disruptive, abusive and unreasonable with respect to the large number of applications to postpone close to or during the hearing, the claimant’s lack of cooperation over documentation and the late exchange of witness statements. This led to additional costs for the respondent.
‘The unfounded allegations the claimant made were serious and damaging. This was particularly so as the respondent is a public authority and the claimant struck at the heart of its governance. The allegations had the potential to cause significant reputational harm to both the council and the legal officers concerned. It was unreasonable for the claimant to continue once the lack of merit in her claim was brought to her attention by the respondent and the settlement offer was made.’
Deciding to exercise her discretion to award costs against Rivers, the judge said Rivers had made ‘serious, unfounded allegations against her colleagues’ and ‘as a lawyer herself, would have been aware of the damage this could cause to reputation’.
The judge ordered Rivers pay £20,000 costs to the council and refused her own’ application for costs.
