SWANSEA: Sacked Land Registry solicitor must pay £20,000 after tribunal condemns ‘vindictive’ campaign

A solicitor sacked by HM Land Registry must pay £20,000 towards its legal costs, after an employment tribunal sitting in Swansea found he had run a claim that was “vindictive, calculated, threatening, alarming, egregious, outrageous and distasteful”.

The costs ruling against Paul Farthing was first reported by the Law Society Gazette.

Farthing, an assistant land registrar, worked for the Land Registry for 18 months before being sacked for gross misconduct in November 2023.

The tribunal heard his dismissal stemmed from the breakdown of a friendship and business relationship with a teacher.

He used his position to influence others against her on social media and accessed Land Registry records about her property, the tribunal found. Referring to himself as a “government lawyer”, he posted allegations that she was not fit to teach children, and contacted her school with further allegations.

He was also alleged to have harassed her with continued and abusive phone calls, to the point that she reported him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the police.

Every complaint thrown out

After a seven-day hearing last year, Employment Judge Povey dismissed all of Farthing’s complaints: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The judge found he had misused his position, breached the Land Registry’s social media policy, accessed and disclosed official information without authority, broken the Civil Service code of conduct and brought the organisation into serious disrepute. Dismissal, the tribunal ruled, was an appropriate and fair sanction.

Farthing represented himself, giving evidence the judge said “had qualities more akin to views and opinions and his interpretations of what he perceived to have taken place”.

‘Without excuse or viable explanation’

During the litigation, Farthing accused the Land Registry’s lawyers of conspiracy to defraud and of being inherently dishonest, reported them to regulators and repeatedly claimed they were under police investigation. Witnesses felt intimidated, the judge said, and asked to avoid giving oral evidence.

“On any reasonable view, the claimant’s conduct has been abusive,” Judge Povey said, “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.”

He 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.”

The Land Registry had asked for Farthing to pay 70% of its £115,800 costs of defending the claims. The judge agreed a costs award was justified, but capped it at £20,000 because of Farthing’s financial circumstances.

Farthing told the tribunal he intends to come off the roll of solicitors.