Employment tribunal claims brought by a solicitor against the Solicitors Regulation Authority and a legal journalist have been dismissed in full.
The practitioner, identified in the judgment as I Laing, alleged direct discrimination based on race and sex, harassment related to those characteristics, and victimisation linked to protected acts. The claims stemmed from investigations conducted by the SRA.
Related: Claimants face costs clampdown in huge case
Laing also brought claims against journalist Neil Rose, who had reported on an earlier employment tribunal case Laing brought against Bury and Bolton Citizens’ Advice Bureau. Laing argued that Rose was effectively working with the SRA.
According to the judgment, Laing made a formal complaint to Rose and threatened legal action. Rose removed the articles from publication, without admitting liability or inaccuracy. He then complained to the SRA about what he described as Laing’s “extremely aggressive approach”.
Judge finds no basis for agency claim
Regional employment judge Franey, sitting in Manchester, wrote that he was “satisfied” Laing could not show Rose was “an agent for the SRA”. The judge said there was “no basis” on which Rose could be held liable under the Equality Act. “In all the material supplied by the claimant there is nothing that showed that Mr Rose was acting on behalf of the SRA or authorised to do so,” he stated. “A regulatory body can gather evidence without making a complainant or witness its agent. There is no reasonable prospect of the tribunal finding that Mr Rose could be liable to the claimant as agent for the SRA.”
Related: Top 10 Tips for Attorneys in 2026: Navigating the Future of Law
SRA investigation deemed warranted
On the claims against the regulator, the judge pointed to the nature of Rose’s complaint against Laing from February 2023 as “of overwhelming significance”.
The correspondence from Laing, the judge noted, “made accusations of bad faith, defamation and falsehood, demanding compensation and a written apology, in ways which were obviously inappropriate given that the articles were just a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings and therefore protected by qualified privilege under section 14 of the Defamation Act 1996.”
Related: Judges face action over court delays
“Despite the assertions made by the claimant to the contrary, those matters plainly warranted an investigation,” the judge added. He found Laing had “no reasonable prospect of showing that the SRA was influenced in any material way by his race, sex or earlier protected acts in deciding to institute the investigation and pursue it”.
Striking out all claims, the judge concluded there was “nothing which suggests any link at all between [Laing’s] protected characteristics and the treatment in question, or his protected acts and the treatment in question”. The case was dismissed in its entirety. No order for costs was mentioned in the published judgment.
