Case 1305385/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305385/2020
- Decision date
- 13 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluggage Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMichael Casson brought age, race, religion/belief and sex discrimination complaints against the Solicitors Regulation Authority arising from regulatory and disciplinary steps taken between 2006 and 2020. The tribunal narrowed the pleaded case to seven specific complaints, including the Adjudicators' decisions on compensation to former clients, the decision to require payment or bring SDT proceedings, the SDT prosecution, resistance to the High Court appeal, pursuit of the appeal costs, an alleged failure to advise the clients about insurers, and a comment said to refer to solicitors like the Claimant.
On jurisdiction, the tribunal held that the SRA was a qualifications body under sections 53 and 54 of the Equality Act 2010, but section 120(7) removed Employment Tribunal jurisdiction where the act complained of could be appealed or reviewed in the nature of an appeal. Applying Michalak, Ali, Khan, Gandhi and R (Thompson), the judge held that the complaints about the Adjudicators' decisions, the referral to the SDT, the SDT prosecution, resisting the High Court appeal, the failure to advise the clients about insurers, and the 'solicitors like the Claimant' comment were all barred because they could have been raised in the appeal route through the SDT and High Court.
The only allegation not caught by section 120(7) was the complaint about the SRA pursuing detailed assessment costs between January 2010 and January 2020. That allegation was not struck out, but the tribunal found it had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a £500 deposit. If the jurisdiction ruling had been wrong, the judge said the other allegations would either have had little or no reasonable prospect of success, with complaint (d) struck out and complaint (g) only attracting a modest deposit. No final merits determination or compensation award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Preliminary jurisdiction ruling. The tribunal held that most of the pleaded complaints were barred by section 120(7) Equality Act 2010, but the allegation about pursuing detailed assessment costs between January 2010 and January 2020 was not struck out and was made subject to a £500 deposit order. No final merits finding was made. | Other | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary jurisdiction ruling. The tribunal held that most of the pleaded complaints were barred by section 120(7) Equality Act 2010, but the allegation about pursuing detailed assessment costs between January 2010 and January 2020 was not struck out and was made subject to a £500 deposit order. No final merits finding was made. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary jurisdiction ruling. The tribunal held that most of the pleaded complaints were barred by section 120(7) Equality Act 2010, but the allegation about pursuing detailed assessment costs between January 2010 and January 2020 was not struck out and was made subject to a £500 deposit order. No final merits finding was made. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary jurisdiction ruling. The tribunal held that most of the pleaded complaints were barred by section 120(7) Equality Act 2010, but the allegation about pursuing detailed assessment costs between January 2010 and January 2020 was not struck out and was made subject to a £500 deposit order. No final merits finding was made. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The allegation that a Respondent operative said the Respondent did not expect solicitors like the Claimant to disobey orders was held barred by section 120(7) Equality Act 2010. In the alternative, the tribunal said it had little reasonable prospect of success and would only have attracted a modest deposit order. No final merits finding was made. |
Legal tests applied
14 references- section 120(7) Equality Act 2010
- section 53 Equality Act 2010
- section 54 Equality Act 2010
- section 49 Solicitors Act 1974
- rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Michalak v General Medical Council
- Ali v Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
- Khan v GMC
- R v Department of Health ex p Gandhi
- R (Thompson) v Law Society
- Sharma v New College Nottingham
- Hemdan v Ishmail
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.