Employment judge rules SRA report by law firm protected by judicial proceedings immunity
A former employee at Trowers & Hamlins has failed in her attempt to include a report made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) as part of her employment tribunal claim for discrimination and victimisation.
At a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Danvers ruled the report was protected by judicial proceedings immunity (JPI), a legal principle shielding regulatory referrals from civil suits. The claimant, based at the firm’s Exeter office, had accused the international firm of constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, and victimisation.
The specific issue before the tribunal was whether a December 2023 referral to the SRA, allegedly describing the claimant as potentially dishonest, could form the basis of a discrimination or victimisation claim.
Judge Danvers said the answer was no.
“It is clear from established case law that complaints made to the police are protected by JPI,” she stated. “This principle extends to regulatory referrals, including those made to the SRA.”
Embed from Getty ImagesThe claimant’s legal team conceded that formal SRA complaints may attract immunity, but argued that this particular report—sent with the subject line “private and confidential” to a named SRA employee—did not qualify. They suggested the email’s tone was tentative and informal, not a definitive complaint.
However, the tribunal disagreed, finding the report was, in substance and effect, a formal disclosure.
The email described the referred individual as “fairly vulnerable” and refrained from naming her, citing concern for her mental health. It also noted the involvement of the firm’s compliance officer and requested guidance on whether more information would be needed.
The judge said: “There is no suggestion that the matter is being raised ‘informally’. The fact that it was not sent through the official reporting channel does not alter the nature of the correspondence.”
She concluded that the content amounted to a formal report with the expectation of regulatory action, thus triggering the JPI shield.
The ruling does not prevent the claimant from continuing with the remainder of her complaint regarding her working conditions at the firm. However, she will not be allowed to amend her claim to include the SRA referral as a discriminatory act.
The broader legal context of the ruling touches on the delicate balance between whistleblower protection, regulatory compliance, and employee rights. Judicial proceedings immunity, while not often tested in employment disputes, exists to encourage full and frank reporting to regulators and law enforcement without fear of retaliatory litigation.
Trowers & Hamlins has not commented publicly on the decision. A final hearing on liability in the case is expected to proceed later this year.
Legal observers say the ruling sends a clear message to employees and firms alike: communications with regulators are protected by law—even when the subject of the report believes the motivations were discriminatory or unfair.
