A solicitor sacked over what a firm described as ‘insubordination’ has lost her claim for unfair dismissal. After an eight-day hearing at Newcastle, Employment Judge Langridge also dismissed claims from Lucy Wennington, admitted in 2009, for disability discrimination and victimisation.
The tribunal heard that north east practice Watson Woodhouse had fired Wennington for alleged failure or refusal to comply with management instructions, bringing the firm name into disrepute and causing a serious error in advice to a client.
Wennington said she had been dismissed over her performance which was related to her disability as a sufferer of perimenopause symptoms, and said the firm had ‘dressed up’ allegations of gross misconduct to secure her summary dismissal.
The judge rejected Wennington’s contention that she had made the firm aware that she was struggling due to her health. She said the claimant had been impaired ‘to a limited degree’ by the effects of menopause on her sleep pattern, and the increase in migraines, but these were not substantial enough to render her a disabled person.
The tribunal heard that Wennington had joined the firm in 2020 and moved within a year into inquest work. She began to experience health issues from 2022 and found it difficult to stay focused due to ‘brain fog’. The firm had starting working on a menopause policy around this time and told staff that trained individuals were available to talk to confidentially.
In late 2022, the firm’s head of civil litigation Sarah Magson – who appeared as a candidate on BBC’s The Apprentice in 2018 – emailed the department to point out issues with billing delays. Wennington told Magson that billing took much longer under the new case management system and that she was struggling to set aside time from her workload. The firm allowed her to work flexibly to allow her to care for her mother but continued to query issues over billing.
A key point came in January 2024 when Wennington failed to ensure that a client in prison had documents ahead of a civil trial. Wennington said she was distressed to receive emails after hours asking for an explanation and the firm responded by reallocating some of her caseload.
At the next team meeting, Wennington said she would contact the Legal Aid Agency directly over an issue with the firm’s legal aid contract. Magson told her not to, and Wennington replied by saying ‘We’ll see’.
This exchange took place in front of junior members of staff, which Magson said was as an inappropriate way of seeking to undermine her authority over the team. Other issues brought up by the firm included repeated failures to manage costs, missed limitation dates and Wennington's suggestion to a client that the courts and judiciary were biased. She was suspended pending an investigation and dismissed in May 2024.
The employment judge said a failure or refusal to follow reasonable instructions was a serious disciplinary concern and the firm was entitled to expect a senior solicitor to show she could be trusted to follow instructions from her head of department. Langridge added that the absence of any remorse or contrition was a ‘significant factor’. While Wennington was entitled to defend herself from allegations of misconduct, repeated threats to take formal action against colleagues was ‘extraordinary’ behaviour.
Wennington has confirmed to the Gazette she has submitted a Request for Reconsideration to the tribunal and intends to appeal to the EAT
