Land Registry: Awarded costs
A solicitor dismissed by HM Land Registry (HMLR) has been ordered to pay costs because of the “vindictive” and “outrageous” way he pursued a failed employment tribunal claim.
Employment Judge Povey said Paul Farthing directed “insults, allegations, slurs and accusations which were both gratuitous, serious and unsubstantiated” at HMLR, its staff, witnesses in the case, HMLR’s lawyers at Mills & Reeve and its counsel.
There were 32 separate instances of his misconduct, including “wholly unfounded allegations that one of the respondent’s witnesses was, in the claimant’s words, ‘potentially a child abuser’”.
Other examples included reporting HMLR’s lawyers to the police and Solicitors Regulation Authority, and suing the staff member who dismissed him for malicious falsehood. The claim was struck out last December, with costs of £30,000 ordered.
Judge Povey recounted how Mr Farthing’s behaviour caused witnesses to feel intimidated and seek permission not to attend to give oral evidence, as well as protection through anonymity orders
Mr Farthing was dismissed for gross misconduct in November 2023 after 19 months as an Assistant Land Registrar.
Last October, the tribunal rejected his claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and discrimination arising from disability, all on the merits.
It was not in dispute that, at the relevant time, Mr Farthing was disabled by reason of a traumatic brain injury and anxiety.
HMLR’s costs were £115,000. It said the litigation should only have cost £35,000 and sought to recover the extra £80,000 it said his conduct had caused from Mr Farthing.
Judge Povey said: “The conduct is supported by evidence and not materially challenged by the claimant as having taken place. It is by no means an exaggeration or hyperbolic to describe it variously as vindictive, calculated, threatening, alarming, egregious, outrageous and distasteful.”
He went on to hold that Mr Farthing’s conduct could not be explained by his disability, as he had argued.
A key symptom of his head injury was “emotional lability”. Mr Farthing’s evidence was that this manifested itself “as reacting immediately and in the immediate moment”.
He contrasted that with how he behaved when he was able to reflect and reach a considered position. “The claimant talked about needing maybe 20 to 30 minutes to adjust to any given situation and emphasised the importance of being able to step back and reflect.”
But Judge Povey said this emotional lability “was clearly not at large, since, even if the claimant on occasions reacted relatively immediately to correspondence from the respondent (for example, he replied quickly to the costs warning letters), he had plenty of time to ‘step back and reflect’.
“There was no evidence of the claimant stepping back and reflecting on his conduct of these proceedings, or of him reaching a considered position.”
Mr Farthing had litigated the case “in a manner which is simply unacceptable”, the judge concluded.
“It is all the more perplexing given he himself is a trained and regulated solicitor, who should know more than most what is expected of those who conduct litigation and engage with the legal system.
“That is not to apply an elevated threshold to the claimant. He is a litigant in person and I have assessed this application with that firmly in my mind. But even as a litigant in person, his behaviour as detailed in this application has been extreme and utterly unacceptable.”
Mr Farthing told the tribunal that he intended to come off the roll and not work as a solicitor again, but the judge said his background “should assist him in securing decently remunerated employment in the future”.
In all the circumstances, including his financial circumstances and job prospects, the judge capped the costs order at £20,000.
Leave a Comment