‘Totally inappropriate’
A barrister has been ordered to pay almost £7,000 in wasted costs after attempting to conduct the first day of an employment tribunal hearing while travelling on trains in Germany.
Michael Engelhardt-Sprack had been given permission to appear remotely at the final hearing because of childcare commitments and the fact that he lives in Germany and practises in the UK. But when proceedings got underway, the barrister initially failed to appear on screen before joining around 20 minutes later wearing headphones and travelling on a train.
Employment Judge Wedderspoon said noise from other passengers could be heard in the background and found that the tribunal could not conduct the first day of a final hearing in those circumstances. The hearing was paused to give Sprack time to find somewhere quieter.
However, rather than waiting at the station, he boarded a second train and again attempted to join proceedings. The judge said the internet connection was poor and that it was difficult to hear the barrister above the background noise, describing it as “totally inappropriate to conduct the hearing in this environment”.
The hearing was eventually adjourned until the following day, when Engelhardt-Sprack appeared in person at Birmingham Employment Tribunal. In written submissions, the barrister explained that he had intended to break up his journey from Munich to Birmingham and secure a private room along the way, but childcare difficulties meant he was unable to leave until the morning of the hearing.
He also apologised, although the tribunal noted there was “no explanation” as to why he had failed to alert either the tribunal or the respondent before the hearing began. In a reconsideration judgment, Judge Wedderspoon found that conducting a remote hearing while travelling by train was “totally inappropriate and unprofessional” and not in accordance with guidance on remote hearings.
The tribunal stopped short of finding that he had acted improperly or unreasonably, but concluded that his conduct amounted to “negligence” because he had failed to act with “the competence reasonably to be expected of ordinary members of the profession”. The judge also found that failing to warn the tribunal or the respondent’s legal teams about the travel difficulties was negligent.
Advance warning, the tribunal said, “could have avoided unnecessary attendance and cost incurred by the respondents”. The tribunal found that the lost hearing day had caused the respondents to incur unnecessary legal and travel costs.
The barrister was ordered to pay the first respondent, Gitpod GmbH, £6,767.44 in wasted costs, covering counsel’s fees, solicitor costs, travel, hotel expenses and the attendance of a trainee solicitor. The tribunal declined to award a further three hours of solicitor time because it was unclear whether that additional work had been caused by the aborted hearing.
Heh, “Gitpod”.
How fitting.
You wouldn’t choo-choo choose him to represent you, would you?
We should not have barristers practicing in our E&W court system living in another country. Totally unacceptable.
Whyever not? If I live in Dumfries & Galloway (Scotland), but am qualified to practise in E&W, why should I not pop into Carlisle County Court?
IMHO that’s rather different because D&G is rather closer to Carlisle than England to Germany.
Another silly comment. Why don’t you just speak to lawyers who do it and they will tell you it works…hate to break it to you, we live in a big advanced world with things like wifi, cars, trains, and planes…
And yet, this case clearly shows that it doesn’t work.
@AprilDancer – this case highlights (perhaps) a conceited, arrogant, inconsiderate and unprofessional barrister.😏Why on earth would one think it appropriate to discuss tribunal/case details in the public space of a train carriage?! Unless one has a grandiose sense of self-importance and entitlement?🤔
No, this case shows that you should not conduct hearings from a train, wherever you happen to be in the world…
Quite. It’s the usual Internet habit of people who don’t know what they are talking about thinking they do. Judges have been known to give judgement from the South of France. And, why not, if it avoids delay.
False equivalence.
Exactly, it doesn’t matter where in the world you might be, the moral of this story is don’t conduct a court hearing from a train.
Because ye should be going to the Sheriff Court North o’the border ye treasonous swine!!!
What a very silly small minded comment. Speak to some who do and do it extremely well.
Because of situations like this. It can happen to anyone. Also he is not covered by his indemnity insurance while he is out of the jurisdiction
How do you know the terms of his indemnity insurance?
Exactly, it matters not where in the world you are – the moral of this story is don’t conduct a hearing on a train – the take away is not don’t be an international practitioner.
And “childcare difficulties” isn’t good enough either.
Totally agree! The use of remote hearings is getting to a point where they are over used in some areas. Remote hearings obviously have a place but I would argue this case conflicts with some of the core duties!
Come on, it’s not about appearing remotely, it’s about not appearing remotely when on a train…
I have conducted Employment Tribunal hearings, with prior permission of the Judge, from Berlin and Florence without difficulty. The Presidential Guidence and professesional conduct rules allow “remote” representation and a significant proportion of ET hearings are now conducted entirely by video link. Members of the Irish bar are permitted to appear before the UK employment Tribunals.
Erm, I think it might be worthwhile considering whether Germany permits appearance in a foreign court process whilst in its jurisdiction. We had to send a German witness to London….
Yes, it does, assuming you have all your regulatory pieces in place…please, try to think bigger than the tiny little island you practice on…
Extraordinary that he coukd conceivably have thought this was a proper orceven reasonable way of conducting himself.
This whole wfh thing is costing this country dear. Now we’ve got wft -working from trains – hardly any environment to guarantee confidentiality and good concentration in what should be a dignified environment. This barrister is doing his client a disservice and should rightly be ashamed of himself. IMHO.
The Legal profession fast losing it’s professionalism. If I were the court I would have have handed down a punitive cost order.
This nonsense has been going on for years. I had a member of chambers that used to live in UK and Belgium. He would commute daily from to Bruges to the RCJ. He really used to get on everyone’s nerves.
Little bit jealous are we?