Tribunal: Reports to SRA have absolute immunity
A solicitor cannot base a victimisation claim against her law firm at the employment tribunal on it reporting her to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), a judge has ruled.
Employment Judge McTigue in Nottingham said the principle of immunity from suit gave complainants absolute privilege and immunity from suit when raising concerns about a solicitor’s performance or character.
This rendered a “knockout blow” to the claim brought by Georgina Jane Gibbon against BG Solicitors in Lincolnshire and meant it had to be struck out.
The decision was concerned with the second of two actions she has brought against the firm.
It relied on the single act of BG Solicitors making a report to the SRA, which Ms Gibbon argued was a detriment for the purposes of her victimisation complaint.
Judge McTigue said the matter “involved the claimant selling a property under the mistaken assumption that a deputyship order gave her the power to do so. It would however appear that deputyship order in question did not confer the right to sell a proper”.
He said it was established law that there was immunity from suit where a party has made a complaint to the police of an offence or is to act as a witness in court. In 2011, the High Court said this extended to the General Medical Council as a quasi-judicial body where complainants raised concerns about a doctor’s clinical performance or character.
Judge McTigue accepted the firm’s submission that this applied equally to the SRA.
“It is also clear to me that the principle must apply where a firm reports itself based on the actions of a one of its fee-earners.
“To borrow from Mr Justice Eady [in the 2011 case], ‘The public policy objective is to enable people to speak freely, without inhibition and without fear of being sued, whether making a complaint of criminal conduct to the police or drawing material to the attention of a professional body such as the GMC or the Law Society for the purpose of investigation’.”
As a result, BG Solicitors’ report to the SRA had immunity suit and absolute privilege and “a complaint to the employment tribunal cannot be founded upon it”.
The judge said he had no choice but to strike out the claim, as this was “effectively a ‘knockout blow’”.
He added that, even if he were wrong on this, the claim had little reasonable prospect of success.
Law firms were under a duty to report potential misconduct to the SRA and this appeared to be a serious matter. It was “quite legitimate” for the firm to make a report.
Further, in its initial report, the firm did not actually name Ms Gibbon, with her identity only becoming known to the SRA at a later stage.
The first claim by Ms Gibbon, who was partner in charge of the property department, is ongoing.
She is claiming constructive unfair dismissal, unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy/maternity leave, direct sex discrimination and victimisation, but Judge McTigue did not detail any of the background.
