M Casson v Solicitors Regulation Authority: 1305385/2020
| Judgment Date | 07 May 2021 |
| Published date | 17 September 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Religion or Belief Discrimination |
1305385/2020 (V)
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant
Respondent
MICHAEL CASSON
v.
SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY
Heard at: Birmingham Employment Tribunal by CVP
On: 8 & 9 FEBRUARY 2021
Before
Employment Judge McCluggage
Appearances
For the Claimant
Mr Goodman (counsel)
For the Respondent
Ms Barney (counsel)
PRELIMINARY HEARING (OPEN)
JUDGMENT
1. All complaints are struck out as barred pursuant to section 120(7) of the Equality Act
2010 save for a complaint that “Between January 2010 and January 2020, pursuing
the Detailed Assessment of costs eventually leading to the Judgement of the Senior
Courts Office of 08 January 2020, whereby the Claimant was ordered to pay the
Respondent the sum of money therein satisfied.”
1305385/2020 (V)
2
REASONS
1. By an application to the tribunal dated 14 April 2020, the Claimant brings claims of age,
race, and religious discrimination against the Respondent.
2. The Respondent has never been the Claimant’s employer but is his regulatory body in
respect of his profession as a solicitor. The Respondent’s ET3 seeks to draw a
distinction between its status as an entity and that of the Law Society when performing
its regulatory functions.
3. This claim falls against the background of a long-running dispute between the Claimant
as a practicing solicitor and his regulatory authorities arising out of what were relatively
modest professional conduct adjudications in 2006 and 2007 relating to issues in
practice over a period from 2004 to 2006 over property transactions. He has sought to
challenge the Respondent’s actions and decisions in the Solicitors Disciplinary
Tribunal and the High Court and there were later unsuccessful attempts to re-open
those decisions. He bears significant costs liabilities through these challenges which
are relevant to his claims in the Employment Tribunal.
4. Employment Judge Flood ordered on 23 September 2020 that the issues for the
Preliminary Hearing would be:
(i) Whether the Claimant's claim relating to the reprimand of the Claimant by the
Respondent and the ensuing legal proceedings should be dismissed by the
Tribunal for want of jurisdiction pursuant to sections 53 and 120 (7) of the
Equality Act 2010?
(ii) Whether all or any of the Claimant's complaints be struck out because they
have no reasonable prospects of success?
(iii) Whether to order the Claimant to pay a deposit (not exceeding £1,000) if it
seems that any contentions put forward had little reasonable prospect of
success.
5. The parties have sought to refine these issues further as set out below.
The Claim and Procedural Background
6. The Claimant is a white male who was 54 years old in 2006 and who is now 67 years
old. He is a probate and property solicitor of long-standing who continues to practice
in a firm of solicitors. There is no suggestion that he is other than a competent and
well-regarded solicitor despite the historic problems in his practice.
7. The Claimant brought a claim to the Employment Tribunal on 14 April 2020 alleging
that the Respondent’s treatment of him during the years from 2006 to 2020 amounts
to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion and age.
To continue reading
Request your trial