Tribunal: Immunity extends to SRA
A City law firm’s complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) about a disabled worker cannot form the basis of a discrimination claim, an employment tribunal has ruled.
Employment Judge Danvers said the case law showed that the principle of judicial proceedings immunity (JPI) “clearly does extend to regulatory proceedings in front of the SRA, as well as criminal proceedings”.
Ms A Joseph has brought claims against Trowers & Hamlins for unfair dismissal, direct and indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability-related harassment, victimisation and unlawful deductions from wages.
Ms Joseph, who suffers from ADHD, autism and anxiety, also claimed that the firm referring her to the SRA in December 2023 was “an act of direct disability discrimination/victimisation”.
The firm sent the complaint by email to an SRA employee over suspicions that a member of staff “may have acted in breach of the honesty provisions”.
It went on: “We are sending this report to you, rather than through the reporting e-mail, as the individual is fairly vulnerable and we want to do all that we can to protect their mental health and wellbeing…
“We have left the report anonymous, however, to try to protect them.”
After setting out the detail, it concluded: “Please do let us know if your team requires more information to form a view as to whether this is capable of being considered further.”
Ruling at a preliminary hearing, the judge rejected arguments from Ms Joseph’s counsel that “the public policy reasons for protecting complaints to the SRA are not as strong as those at play in criminal proceedings and therefore JPI should apply in a more limited way”.
She went on: “Parliament has decided that such complaints should be determined by a quasi-judicial body and that the regulation of solicitors is a matter of public importance.
“It seems to me that the rationale for protecting complainants of criminal conduct by JPI as set out in the authorities above, applies similarly to complainants of regulatory misconduct by solicitors.”
Ms Joseph argued that the report was only “informal” and so JPI did not apply.
Judge Danvers did not accept it was informal – there was no indication of this in the email – and in any event there was no basis for making a distinction with a ‘formal’ complaint.
“I see no logic in conferring immunity to complaints made via a ‘reporting email’, but not to this email which also seeks to initiate a complaint and internal process within the SRA, albeit via a different route and initially on an anonymous basis for the reasons given in the email.”
Judge Danvers said JPI also extended to “protect someone within a solicitor’s firm instructing the compliance officer and/or general counsel to make such a report”.
“I do not consider it is logical to protect a person who complains directly to the SRA, but not those who bring matters to the attention of the designated person/people within a firm and instruct them to raise it with the SRA.”
She said this would be “the kind of ‘flank attack’ that would lead to potential complainants being unsure, in advance, on whether their complaint would be protected” and lead to a “loss of confidence” which could “erode the rigours of the solicitors’ regulatory system”, as well as public confidence in it.
Judge Danvers also did not accept that an exception should be made to the normal application of JPI because the complaints being pursued were claims under the Equality Act 2010.
She dismissed the complaints founded on the SRA referral.
Leave a Comment