Report comment

Let's look at he facts as reported both at ET and the SDT. The consultant is a self employed consultant and yet he argues that he is an employee in order to bring an action for discrimination ! In my view the consultant is morally dishonest, if not in the legal sense. Secondly, he shouts in an open plan office telling one of the employees to take the "firm to the cleaners" ! Thirdly, he sends a Christmas card to one of a long standing member of the staff with the words"firm disintegrating". Fourthly, he encourages a member of staff to apply for a job with a long standing client of the firm where he has a directorship and thus risking the firm losing that client. Fifthly, according to one witness he is full of "vitriol" and "spitting blood" in relation to the respondent at the firm's Christmas party. He also causes loss of a major client. Now, as a self employed consultant he successfully argues he is an employee and the ET agrees he is a worker and then goes on to claim discrimination. The respondent's actions were directly in retaliation and reaction to the claimant's discpicable behaviour and whilst the so called "employee" could bring a claim in the ET against the firm, the firm was helpless and could not take any action against the applicant's behaviour. Ultimately, the firm was found to have discriminated although the respondent's actions and emails were in retaliation and reaction to the applicant's behaviour in the office.

And then the SRA then for reasons best known to themselves and their solicitors decide to refer the matter to the SDT. And to get it over the threshold for referral, they decide to allege 3 counts of dishonesty which they later withdraw. Of course the respondent applies to have these allegations struck off.

The issue of proceedings for dishonesty was a travesty. It was ill conceived and a shambles. The SDT should have grasped that point and awarded costs against the SRA.

Costs of £32,000 of which 50% are being picked up by the profession is absolutely outrageous. The SDT should have powers to make those responsible at the SRA and their solicitors for taking such ridiculous decisions to prosecute responsible for the costs. And they should also be made responsible for the respondent's costs.

This is madness. The SRA have no sense of proportion and the SDT should have taken them to task and awarded costs against them.

To pursue a matter where the respondent is fined £2ki costs of £32 k plus the respondents's own costs is absolutely and utterly ridiculous.

My view is that the SRA and their solicitors are themselves guilty of dishonest in alleging and bringing charges of dishonesty against the respondent purely in order to get the allegations over the threshold so that the matter can be referred to the SDT.
Both the SRA and their solicitors should be prosecuted,