Land Registry Lawyer Unsuccessful in Unfair Dismissal Claim After 'Nonce' Slur
Paul Farthing, a former lawyer at HM Land Registry, has failed in his claim for unfair dismissal after being sacked for calling a client's father-in-law a "nonce" and engaging in what was described as a "methodical and calculating" campaign of harassment. The employment tribunal in Swansea rejected all of Mr Farthing's claims, including allegations of disability discrimination and breach of contract.
Details of the Harassment Campaign
Mr Farthing, who referred to himself as a "government lawyer," was dismissed from his role as an Assistant Land Registrar in November 2023 for gross misconduct. The tribunal heard that he had harassed his client, Samantha Williams, on social media, labelling her a "narcissist" and contacting the school where she worked as a teacher. He alleged that she had "mental health issues" and was unfit to work with children, threatening to "go public" with his accusations.
Furthermore, Mr Farthing posted on social media that Mrs Williams' father-in-law was "a convicted nonce" who had "served jail time for this," urging people to "watch their kids carefully." He also used his position to access and share details of how Ms Williams and her husband held the beneficial interest in their farm property, which he did not dispute during the proceedings.
Brain Injury Defence Rejected by Tribunal
Mr Farthing argued that his actions were a result of a traumatic brain injury he sustained during his employment, which he claimed made him "impulsive" and caused emotional lability. He contended that this should be considered as a mitigating factor, and that the Land Registry failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability.
However, Jonathon Mudford, who conducted the investigation for HM Land Registry, concluded that Mr Farthing's actions were repeated and not merely a "knee jerk reaction." Mr Mudford stated: "It is clear that your actions and negative behaviours that you have shown over a continuous period of months have been methodical and calculating, and have not arisen in consequence of your brain injury."
Thorough Investigation Praised by Employment Judge
Employment Judge Stephen Povey ruled that there was no discrimination in the investigation process and praised its thoroughness. He said: "Mr Mudford's written decision was detailed, comprehensive, wholly based upon the evidence, properly reasoned and written with due care and diligence. It was the product of a detailed, thorough, independent and transparent decision-making process."
Judge Povey added that Mr Farthing's conduct was "inappropriate" and his dismissal was fair. He concluded: "The social media posts which he did make public were clearly inappropriate and, at times, abusive and malicious. That he sent them was never disputed. On the basis of those admitted posts, the Land Registry was clearly entitled to find that he had repeatedly and egregiously breached its social media policy."
Land Registry's Findings and Dismissal
The Land Registry's investigation found that Mr Farthing had misused official information and his position, breached the company's social media policy, unlawfully harassed Ms Williams, and brought the Land Registry into disrepute. As a result, he was dismissed with immediate effect. His appeal, which included accusations of discriminatory investigation due to his disability, was unsuccessful.
Ms Williams had lodged a complaint in June 2023, alleging that Mr Farthing was misusing his position to influence others against her on social media and had accessed Land Registry records to obtain information about her and her husband's farm property. She also accused him of abusive calls and social media posts, and of making false allegations to her school and the police.
Judge Povey emphasized the seriousness of the misconduct, stating: "Given the conduct for which he was dismissed, we had no hesitation in concluding that investigating, disciplining and ultimately dismissing him for that conduct was a proportionate means of achieving those legitimate aims. That was all the more so in circumstances where he had accessed Land Registry data, shared it with others, breached the Land Registry's social media policy, acted in a manner which they were entitled to conclude breached its own and the Civil Service Codes of Conduct and, by extension, brought their reputation into serious disrepute."
