Tribunal: Judge unhappy with law firm’s approach
An employment judge has condemned “unconscionable opportunism” by a Cornish law firm in seeking to “capitalise” on a procedural error by a disabled receptionist who claimed constructive dismissal.
Judge Smail said the claimant, a litigant in person, thought she was accepting a settlement proposed by Sproull Solicitors when she wrote to the tribunal withdrawing her claim, before ACAS declared the settlement as binding.
The judge said he had “no hesitation” in setting aside the judgment dismissing the claim upon withdrawal. “That dismissal was the result of a clear mistake, a mistake that was acknowledged by the respondent.”
Sproull Solicitors, based in Bodmin, “has sought to capitalise upon this error, they have not recognised a mistake and honoured the settlement, they have ran with the idea that the claimant withdrew her claim so there is no claim for them to deal with”.
He went on: “In my judgment that is most unattractive, indeed unconscionable opportunism on their part.
“They proposed the settlement, adopting wording provided by ACAS. Plainly the claimant thought she was accepting that settlement and made the procedural error of writing to the tribunal, withdrawing her claim before ACAS had declared the settlement as binding.”
The employment tribunal heard that Wendy Wickett worked for the law firm between January 2018 and May 2023 as a receptionist, before resigning and claiming constructive dismissal.
Ms Wickett, whose “mental health disability of anxiety and depression” was accepted by the law firm, brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination in August 2023.
After disability was conceded by the law firm, settlement negotiations involving ACAS took place in advance of listing the case for a five-day merits hearing.
Compensation of £12,000 was agreed, and draft wording sent to Ms Wickett. In a covering email, ACAS told her that she was only required to write to the tribunal to withdraw the claim once ACAS had confirmed the agreement as legally binding.
Four days later, Ms Wickett emailed the tribunal to withdraw her claims. The following afternoon, ACAS told her that there was now no case for ACAS to settle; a similar email was sent to the law firm.
The Employment Rules 2024 allow a judge to reconsider the decision of a legal officer dismissing a claim on withdrawal. Here, the judge said, it “cannot be in the interests of justice to issue a dismissal judgment based upon a clear mistake by the claimant”.
The claim remained withdrawn but Ms Wickett could issue a new claim, “claiming the same remedies on the same basis”
She would need, if the point was taken, “just an equitable extension of time; and her argument on why it would be just and equitable is clear from the above”.
Judge Smail added: “It would not prejudice the respondent. There is nothing stopping the respondent from simply honouring the original settlement proposed by them.”
Gone are the days when anxiety and depression were part of the ups and downs of life – now its a ‘disability.’ We are pandering to wet wipes.