Ms WING SZE SIU v STERLING LAWYERS LIMITED Heard : By video [CVP] — 2023

The Tribunal refused the Claimant's late application dated 23 October 2023 to add race discrimination and bullying allegations because it was brought too late and was insufficiently particularised. It then determined liability only. Ms Siu had worked as a trainee solicitor from 1 July 2021 and was summarily dismissed after a disciplinary process; the Tribunal accepted that the decision to dismiss was taken on 3 October 2022, although the dismissal letter was sent on 7 October 2022.

On the whistleblowing issues, the Tribunal noted that the specific disclosure relied on in the list of issues, said to have been made around 4/5 September 2022, was not demonstrated in evidence. It nevertheless proceeded on the footing that the later September 2022 communications to the SRA and other external bodies could satisfy the s.43B ERA 1996 criteria and the public interest requirement, but held that they were not a material causative influence on dismissal. The Respondent's disciplinary concerns had already been identified about a month earlier and were already under investigation, so the Tribunal found no basis for saying that the disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal.

The pregnancy-based claims also failed. The Tribunal accepted that the dismissal decision was reached on 3 October 2022, before the Claimant notified the Respondent of her pregnancy on 4 October 2022, so the Respondent could not have acted because of that notification. The Equality Act pregnancy and maternity complaint failed for the same reason, namely the absence of causation.

The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the Tribunal found proved one discrete act of misconduct: the Claimant had sent confidential and client-sensitive material from her work email account to a private address under her control. That conduct was held to be a fundamental breach of the confidentiality obligations in the training contract and of the duty of trust and confidence. The Tribunal criticised the Respondent's investigation as seriously deficient and unsatisfactory, but still concluded that this proved breach was enough to justify summary dismissal. The claims for unpaid holiday and unauthorised deductions were dismissed because the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's evidence that the Claimant's pro-rata holiday entitlement had been fully met and that no shortfall in final pay was proved.