A law firm’s response to an employment tribunal has been struck out after a judge found it failed to comply with disclosure orders and attempted to mislead.
A family law solicitor, named as M Ramage in the tribunal judgment, brought money claims against her former employer south London firm Perduco Law Ltd and Lawyer UP Group (UK) LLP, both founded and led by Peter Pearcy.
Ramage resigned from the firm in August 2024 and later that month was put on garden leave on the basis that she had registered a company two days after her resignation. The following month, Perduco terminated Ramage’s employment. An employment judge made orders relating to disclosure and Lawyer UP Group, as second respondent to the claim, was given leave to serve grounds of response.
The preliminary hearing judgment found that Lawyer UP Group did not comply with the direction to submit a response due to a misunderstanding as to whether it had joined the claim.
Employment judge Joffe said it was ‘difficult to understand’ how a misunderstanding had occured when a consultant firm Croner, instructed by Pearcy, the founder and managing director of both firms, was already involved in proceedings and a litigation consultant acting for the firms was present at the hearing.
‘The alleged misunderstanding is inexplicable in circumstances where the case management orders were clear, the second respondent had access to advice from [a litigation consultant] and was not a lay person but a law firm.’
Read more
The judge said Perduco failed to comply with orders. She added: ‘The reasons for that failure have not been explained adequately or at all given the history which I have described.’
The judgment said Pearcy 'appears to be the controlling mind' of both firms and 'the failure to deal honestly with the tribunal infects the dealings of both respondents. The conduct of proceedings, including the attempts to mislead the tribunal and the very late disclosure of documents which must have been readily available to the first respondent easily meets the threshold for unreasonable conduct.’
Striking out Perduco's response, the judge said: ‘A fair trial is not possible at all, given the dishonesty about the position of the second respondent which affects documents due from both respondents and of course instructions given by Mr Pearcy.
‘If there is no fair disclosure process, there cannot be a fair trial of the issues at any time. I do not consider that there is a lesser sanction which would allow a fair trial to occur and I concluded that this was an appropriate case in which to exercise the discretion to strike out and accordingly struck out the first respondent’s response in its entirety.’
