A solicitor who accused lawyers fighting his employment claim of fraud and dishonesty has been hit with a £20,000 costs bill for the way he conducted the case. The Employment Tribunal found Paul Farthing had mounted a legal campaign which was ‘vindictive, calculated, threatening, alarming, egregious, outrageous and distasteful’.
HM Land Registry, where Farthing worked for 18 months before being sacked for gross misconduct in November 2023, said his conduct of the employment claim was such that he should face a costs penalty. During the course of the litigation, Farthing had accused Land Registry’s lawyers of conspiracy to defraud and being inherently dishonest, reported them to regulators and repeatedly said they were under police investigation.
Employment Judge Povey, sitting at the Swansea tribunal, said Farthing’s conduct had been unreasonable, causing witnesses to feel intimidated and ask to avoid giving oral evidence.
The judge said: ‘On any reasonable view, the claimant’s conduct has been abusive, because it included, but was not limited to, insults, allegations, slurs and accusations which were both gratuitous, serious and unsubstantiated, being directed at the respondent in general, at the respondent’s employees, at witnesses in these proceedings, at the respondent’s solicitors and at the respondent’s counsel.’
The judge added: ‘The claimant’s behaviour is without excuse or viable explanation. 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.’
Farthing, who told the tribunal he intended to come off the roll, was an assistant land registrar before his dismissal. He represented himself during the employment claim but all his complaints were dismissed, as the judge said his evidence ‘had qualities more akin to views and opinions and his interpretations of what he perceived to have taken place’.
Land Registry applied for Farthing to pay 70% of its costs of £115,800 of defending the claims.
The dismissal had stemmed from Farthing’s response to a breakdown in the business relationship/friendship with a teacher. The tribunal heard that the solicitor used his position to influence others on social media against her and accessed Land Registry records regarding her property.
He referred to himself as a ‘government lawyer’ in social media posts where he alleged that the teacher was not fit to teach children, and contacted her school – again referring to himself as a ‘government lawyer’ making further allegations.
Farthing was also alleged to have personally harassed the teacher through continued and abusive phone calls, to the point where she reported this conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the police.
Following a seven-day hearing last year, Employment Judge Povey threw out complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, as well as complaints of disability discrimination and breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The judge found that Farthing misused his position with the Land Registry, breached its policy on social media, accessed and disclosed official information without authority, acted in breach of the Civil Service code of conduct and brought the authority into serious disrepute.
HM Land Registry was found to have been reasonably entitled to conclude that Farthing was guilty of gross misconduct and that dismissal was an appropriate and fair sanction.
The judge agreed that Farthing should pay towards the defence costs but capped the amount at £20,000 given his financial circumstance.
Opponents fear regulator's plans will do little to prevent misappropriation of client money and could place unsustainable burdens on smaller practices.
Practitioner said payments from online professional enquiry website were for work done by his brother.
