Barrister hit with £7k costs bill after joining hearing from train

‘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.