German trains: Not the next best thing to Birmingham Employment Tribunal
A barrister who attempted to conduct a remote employment tribunal hearing from two different trains in Germany has been ordered to pay £6,800 in wasted costs.
Employment Judge Wedderspoon said trying to act for the claimant in this way was “totally inappropriate and unprofessional”. It was also a breach of the presidential guidance on employment tribunals.
Failing to contact the tribunal or respondents’ legal teams to warn them that the first day of the hearing “was likely to be aborted due to the inability to conduct the hearing in a quiet environment in accordance with the presidential guidance” was also inappropriate and unprofessional.
The tribunal heard that the case was listed for a final hearing, with Michael Engelhardt-Sprack granted permission to conduct the first day remotely because of child-care commitments and the fact that he lives in Germany with his family but practises in the UK.
The purpose of the first day was “to conduct housekeeping”, including the claimant’s contested disclosure application. One respondent was represented by a barrister and her instructing solicitor, the other by a trainee solicitor – all of them in person.
Judge Wedderspoon said the judge who granted Mr Engelhardt-Sprack permission to appear remotely that day “could not have envisaged that appearance would be whilst travelling on a train”.
Mr Engelhardt-Sprack initially failed to appear at the hearing in May 2025. After a 20-minute delay, the barrister then appeared on the video link with his headphones on, travelling on a train. He assured the tribunal he could conduct the case.
The judge went on: “Although claimant’s counsel submitted in his written submissions he ‘found a quiet location’ on the train, this was not the recollection of the tribunal. It was not simply a connection issue; noise and passengers’ conversations could be heard in the background.
“The tribunal determined that it could not conduct the first day of a final hearing and a contested disclosure application in these circumstances; this was not a suitably quiet environment to conduct the hearing.”
The tribunal asked when he would be in a quiet environment and Mr Engelhardt-Sprack thought he would get some time between trains in about an hour later.
“However, Mr Sprack did not wait at the station or find himself a quiet environment to conduct the hearing but embarked a second train.”
This was no better, with a poor connection and significant background noise that made it difficult to hear him.
The case was postponed to the next day, when Mr Engelhardt-Sprack appeared in person in Birmingham.
The barrister had written to the tribunal to apologise, explaining that when he applied to attend remotely he was intending to split his journey and secure a private room along the route. However, due to the unavailability of child care, he started the journey from Munich a day later than expected and this did not prove possible.
He said he boarded the second train because he was worried that he would not otherwise reach Birmingham for day two of the hearing.
“There was no explanation as to why he had failed to alert the tribunal or the respondent prior to the first day of the hearing” the judge said.
On the basis of his “negligent conduct”, Mr Engelhardt-Sprack was ordered to pay £6,800 in wasted costs to the first respondent. The second respondent’s costs were reimbursed by the first respondent under a commercial agreement.