A former managing partner of a Yorkshire firm who was found to have acted unreasonably in employment tribunal proceedings has been ordered to pay his firm’s counsel fees.

Regional employment judge Robertson made a costs order against solicitor Michael Willis for counsel fees ‘reasonably and properly incurred’ from 1 August 2022 in preparation for and attendance of the remedy hearing.

The remedy judgment follows an earlier tribunal decision to make no award of compensation to Willis for injury to feelings, personal injury or special damages and the cost of personal care, in respect of acts of unlawful disability discrimination against him which the respondents, GWB Harthills LLP, Ms H Russell, and Ms E Lord, had admitted.

The remedy judgment said: ‘It is unusual for a tribunal not to award compensation where unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 has been found (or admitted).’

The respondents said their costs exceeded £380,000 and asked for detailed assessment, with a proposed cap of £277,000, the judgment said.

Finding Willis had not acted unreasonably in settlement discussions during 2020, the judge said: ‘Whilst I acknowledge that the claimant was seeking a global settlement whereby he would leave the firm, the value of £2.5m which he placed on his claim for future loss of profits arising from his discriminatory treatment was unrealistic.

‘There was little evidence in what followed of any realistic wish to settle. The respondents’ proposals were rejected as “derisory”. The claimant refused to participate in mediation. But on the other hand, the respondents themselves withdrew from judicial mediation in August 2020 on the ground there was too much between the parties. Experience says that even where there appears to be much between the parties, mediation may find a way through.

‘In my judgment, the respondents cannot properly criticise the claimant for declining to participate in mediation when they had themselves done the same thing.’

The judge also found no unreasonable conduct on Willis’ part in his engagement with further settlement discussions but, based on findings of the previous tribunal, did find he had acted unreasonably in giving evidence at the remedy hearing ‘that was deliberately untrue about important components of his remedy claim’.

The judge said: ‘I have decided that I should make a costs order but that it should be confined to counsel’s fees incurred by the respondents for the remedy hearing.’