Solicitors Regulation Authority

Case Summary

All complaints were struck out as barred pursuant to section 120(7) of the Equality Act 2010 except for one complaint related to costs assessment. The judge ruled that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over certain claims and dismissed them.

The tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the complaints because they were barred by section 120(7) of the Equality Act 2010, which is a statutory exclusion preventing the tribunal from hearing those claims.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •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?
• •Whether all or any of the Claimant's complaints have no reasonable prospects of success?
• •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.

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 Septem…