Claimant v BG Solicitors LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
This claim is part of the first claim (2600652/2024) which was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
This claim for unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy/maternity leave under sections 18(2)(a), 18(3) and 18(4) of the Equality Act 2010 is part of the first claim which was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
This claim is part of the first claim (2600652/2024) which was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
This victimisation claim is part of the first claim (2600652/2024) which was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
This claim for detriment under section 47(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 19 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 is part of the first claim which was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
The second claim (2601823/2024) alleged victimisation based on the respondent's report to the SRA on 11 June 2024. The tribunal struck out this claim under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent's report to the SRA was subject to absolute privilege and immunity from suit. The public policy objective is to enable people to speak freely to professional regulatory bodies without fear of being sued. A complaint to the Employment Tribunal cannot be founded upon a communication subject to absolute privilege.
Facts
The claimant, a solicitor, brought two claims against her former employer, a law firm. The first claim (2600652/2024) included constructive dismissal, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, and victimisation. The second claim (2601823/2024) related solely to an allegation that the respondent's report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) on 11 June 2024 constituted victimisation. The report concerned the claimant's alleged misuse of a Deputyship Order in selling a property. The claimant became aware of the report on 13 August 2024 and filed her second claim on 8 October 2024.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the second claim under Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis it had no reasonable prospect of success. Although the claim was presented out of time, the tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds given the short delay and the claimant's lack of knowledge until August. However, the respondent's report to the SRA was subject to absolute privilege and immunity from suit, meaning no claim could be founded upon it. This was a 'knockout blow' making a fair trial impossible.
Practical note
Reports made by law firms to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about potential professional misconduct are subject to absolute privilege and immunity from suit, and cannot form the basis of a victimisation claim in the Employment Tribunal, even if the report is alleged to be retaliatory.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600652/2024
- Decision date
- 1 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Fee earner
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor