Overview
This disclosure concerns the use of costs-based pressure within Employment Tribunal proceedings, the subsequent issuance of a civil claim grounded in documented medical vulnerability, and the procedural approach adopted by DAC Beachcroft LLP following acceptance of that claim by the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC).
The disclosure focuses on a sequence in which a civil claim, issued in response to a costs threat and supported by extensive medical evidence, was met not with a Defence, but with an application for strike-out supported by a partner witness statement asserting that such claims are inherently non-viable as a matter of principle.
Factual Context
- During ongoing Employment Tribunal proceedings, DAC Beachcroft LLP issued a “without prejudice save as to costs” letter asserting that the Tribunal claim had no reasonable prospect of success and warning of potential costs liability of up to £20,000.
- At the time of that correspondence, the Claimant was medically vulnerable, with chronic health conditions subsequently documented in a Subject Access Request (SAR) medical disclosure exceeding 120 pages.
- A civil claim was issued in direct response to the costs-based pressure, alleging harassment, misrepresentation, and professional misconduct arising from the manner and context in which the threat was deployed.
- The Employment Tribunal did not intervene at that stage, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority indicated that it did not identify sufficient grounds for regulatory action.
- Upon submission of the civil claim, together with the supporting medical SAR documentation, the Civil National Business Centre accepted and issued the claim without delay, indicating that the claim met the administrative threshold for civil adjudication.
- Following service of the claim, DAC Beachcroft LLP filed an Acknowledgment of Service (Form N9) indicating an intention to defend all of the claim.
- No Defence or Counterclaim was subsequently filed.
- Instead, DAC Beachcroft LLP issued an N244 application seeking strike-out and/or summary judgment, supported by a partner witness statement, without ever pleading a substantive response to the allegations.
DAC Beachcroft Procedural Approach
Following acceptance of the claim by the CNBC, the Defendant adopted a process characterised by:
- reliance on an Acknowledgment of Service only;
- the absence of any pleaded Defence under CPR Part 15;
- early invocation of strike-out and/or summary judgment procedures; and
- use of a partner-level witness statement to advance substantive legal conclusions.
This approach avoided engagement with the factual allegations and medical evidence through the ordinary pleading framework.
Partner Witness Statement and Normalisation of Practice
In the supporting witness statement, the Defendant’s partner advances generalised propositions presented as settled professional norms, including that:
- solicitors do not owe duties of care to opponents in civil litigation save in “very extraordinary circumstances”;
- claims of this nature cannot succeed as a matter of principle;
- no further disclosure or evidence could alter that position; and
- early termination of proceedings is therefore appropriate.
The statement does not engage in a fact-specific assessment of the Claimant’s circumstances. Instead, it presents the Defendant’s approach as orthodox, routine, and professionally unremarkable, implicitly normalising:
- the deployment of costs-based pressure,
- the treatment of resulting civil claims as inherently defective, and
- the use of strike-out applications in place of pleaded defences.
Analysis:
By characterising the conduct complained of as routine, the witness statement implicitly acknowledges repeat deployment across multiple cases. The public-interest concern arises from the likelihood that many affected litigants did not, or could not, challenge the practice through civil proceedings. The present disclosure brings that practice into view.
Procedural Framework Engaged
Civil Procedure Rules
I. Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules – Costs and Conduct
“A Tribunal may make a costs order where a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings.”
Analysis:
The Defendant issued a without prejudice save as to costs letter asserting that the Employment Tribunal claim had no reasonable prospect of success and warning of potential costs liability of up to £20,000.
This correspondence was issued to a litigant in person and formed the direct trigger for the subsequent civil claim.
The disclosure concerns the use of costs pressure as a deterrent mechanism during active Tribunal proceedings and the downstream civil consequences of that conduct.
II. Equality Act 2010 – Disability and Harassment
“A person has a disability if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”
“A person harasses another if they engage in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic and the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.”
Analysis:
At the time of the costs threat and subsequent procedural pressure, the Claimant was medically vulnerable.
A full Subject Access Request medical disclosure exceeding 120 pages was later submitted, documenting chronic conditions including diabetes and nerve damage.
The civil claim was accepted by the Civil National Business Centre with that medical evidence before it.
The disclosure concerns procedural conduct undertaken in circumstances where disability and vulnerability were materially relevant.
III. Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (Fair Hearing)
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.”
Analysis:
The Defendant’s procedural strategy avoided engagement with the claim through the ordinary pleading framework.
By declining to file a Defence and instead seeking early termination through strike-out and summary judgment, the Defendant prevented the definition of issues and the filing of a Reply.
The disclosure concerns whether the procedural architecture afforded equality of arms and a fair opportunity to be heard.
IV. Civil Procedure Rules r.10 – Acknowledgment of Service
“A defendant who wishes to defend all or part of a claim must file an acknowledgment of service.”
Analysis:
The Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service indicating an intention to defend the entirety of the claim.
This step preserved time only. It did not constitute a Statement of Case and did not plead any factual or legal position.
No Defence followed.
V. Civil Procedure Rules r.15.2 – Defence to be Filed
“A defendant who wishes to defend all or part of a claim must file a defence.”
Analysis:
Despite indicating an intention to defend, the Defendant never filed a Defence or Counterclaim.
No admissions, denials, or alternative facts were pleaded.
The absence of a Defence prevented the ordinary operation of the pleading framework and removed the Claimant’s ability to respond by Reply.
VI. Civil Procedure Rules r.3.4(2) – Strike Out
“The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court—
(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim…”
Analysis:
The Defendant sought strike-out without having filed any Statement of Case capable of being struck out.
Strike-out was invoked while simultaneously avoiding the obligation to plead a Defence.
This converts a judicial case-management power into a mechanism for pre-pleading termination.
VII. Civil Procedure Rules r.24.2 – Summary Judgment
“The court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant if it considers that that party has no real prospect of succeeding and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial.”
Analysis:
The Defendant asserted that the claim had no real prospect of success while withholding any pleaded factual position.
Without a Defence, the court was deprived of the comparative pleaded material ordinarily required to assess prospects.
The application sought summary judgment in a procedural vacuum.
VIII. Misrepresentation Act 1967
“Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party and as a result thereof he has suffered loss…”
Analysis:
The civil claim alleges that representations concerning inevitability of failure and costs exposure were knowingly false or misleading.
The disclosure concerns whether such representations were used as coercive pressure rather than neutral procedural explanation.
IX. Protection from Harassment Act 1997
“A person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment.”
Analysis:
The disclosure concerns repeated procedural pressure, costs threats, and early termination tactics alleged to have caused psychological harm.
The course of conduct is examined cumulatively, not as an isolated communication.
X. Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct
“You act with honesty and integrity.”
“You do not take unfair advantage of third parties.”
Analysis:
Although the Solicitors Regulation Authority declined to take enforcement action, the conduct remains relevant and justiciable in a civil and public-interest context.
The disclosure concerns professional practice normalised at partner level rather than regulatory outcome.
XI. Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR Article 5
“Personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner.”
Analysis:
The acceptance of the civil claim by the Civil National Business Centre followed submission of extensive medical records.
The disclosure concerns the procedural handling and contextual use of special category medical data in subsequent litigation conduct.
XII. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
“A qualifying disclosure is any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker, is made in the public interest.”
Analysis:
This disclosure documents a repeatable institutional process affecting access to justice, procedural fairness, and the treatment of vulnerable litigants.
It is made in the public interest and forms part of the Truthfarian disclosure record.
XIII. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial)
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Analysis:
The procedural architecture adopted by the Defendant avoided engagement with the claim through the ordinary pleading framework.
By filing an Acknowledgment of Service, declining to file a Defence, and instead pursuing early termination through strike-out and summary judgment, the Defendant prevented the definition of issues and the filing of a Reply.
The disclosure concerns whether the process afforded equality of arms and a practical opportunity to be heard, as required by Article 6, where procedural mechanisms were used to foreclose adjudication rather than facilitate it.
XIV. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Article 8 (Respect for Private Life)
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”
Analysis:
Extensive special-category medical data was disclosed through a Subject Access Request and relied upon in the civil claim.
The disclosure concerns the procedural treatment of that information once medical vulnerability was formally known, including the continuation of unadjusted procedural pressure and early termination tactics.
Article 8 is engaged where legal process intrudes upon physical and psychological integrity without proportional safeguards, particularly in circumstances of known vulnerability.
XV. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 14(1)
“All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals.”
Analysis:
The disclosure concerns procedural inequality arising from the Defendant’s ability to deploy strike-out and summary judgment applications without first pleading a Defence.
The Claimant, as a litigant in person, was required to respond to applications in the absence of a pleaded case to meet.
This section examines whether equality before tribunals was preserved where procedural power was exercised asymmetrically and upstream of adjudication.
XVI. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 2(3)
“Each State Party… undertakes to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms… are violated shall have an effective remedy.”
Analysis:
The disclosure concerns whether an effective remedy was available where the procedural sequence foreclosed substantive adjudication of the claim.
Where a claim is accepted by the court, but procedural mechanisms are used to terminate it before issues are joined, the availability of a practical and effective remedy is called into question.
The concern is structural and procedural, not outcome-based.
XVII. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – Article 13 (Access to Justice)
“States Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural accommodations.”
Analysis:
At the material time, the Claimant was medically vulnerable and had disclosed disability-related information through formal process.
The disclosure concerns the absence of procedural accommodation once that vulnerability was known, including the maintenance of full procedural pressure and early termination tactics.
Article 13 is engaged where legal process proceeds without adjustment in circumstances where disability materially affects participation.
XVIII. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – Article 5 (Equality and Non-Discrimination)
“States Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection.”
Analysis:
The disclosure examines whether disadvantage arose through process rather than overt discrimination, where procedural mechanisms disproportionately affected a vulnerable litigant.
The concern is whether equality was maintained where procedural strategy interacted with known disability and medical fragility, producing foreseeable disadvantage.
Disclosure Point
This disclosure identifies a procedural bypass, whereby:
- a costs threat in tribunal proceedings gives rise to a civil claim;
- that claim is accepted and issued by the civil court when supported by medical evidence;
- yet the Defendant declines to plead a Defence and instead seeks early termination through strike-out and partner evidence alone.
The effect is to collapse the adversarial structure at inception, removing the requirement for the Defendant to commit to a pleaded position or permit a Reply.
Public Interest Significance
The issue disclosed is not limited to an isolated case. It concerns the normalisation of a repeatable institutional process, endorsed at partner level, in which:
- costs-based pressure is treated as routine;
- civil scrutiny is resisted without engagement on the merits; and
- vulnerable litigants are met with early procedural termination rather than substantive response.
This raises questions of procedural symmetry, access to justice, and the integrity of the civil pleading framework where medical vulnerability has been formally evidenced.
Truth-Variant Formal Model (from the Tribunal Vulnerability Disclosure)
System and Equilibrium Definition
Define the procedural system:
$ \mathcal{S}=\langle \mathcal{X},\mathcal{R},\mathcal{L},\mathcal{E}\rangle $
Where:
- ($\mathcal{X}$) = procedural state (directions, correspondence, timetable),
- ($\mathcal{R}$) = relational structure (tribunal, respondent counsel, claimant),
- ($\mathcal{L}$) = procedural language and communication,
- ($\mathcal{E}$) = ethical and statutory duty layer (reasonable adjustments).
Truth exists where the system maintains equilibrium:
$ \Sigma(\Delta c - \Delta \Omega) \ge 0 $
Knowledge-Triggered Duty Axiom
Let:
- $K = 1$ denote formal knowledge of medical vulnerability.
- $D = 1$ denote the duty to apply procedural adjustment, pause, or accommodation.
Truth-Variant axiom:
$ K = 1 ;\Rightarrow; D = 1 $
Omission and Drift Condition
Let:
- ($A = 1$) denote adjustments applied,
- ($A = 0$) denote adjustments not applied.
Define the omission operator:
$ O = K \cdot (1 - A) $
Where:
- ($O = 1$) → procedural drift is introduced,
- such omission increases ownership-load on the vulnerable party:
$ O = 1 ;\Rightarrow; \Delta \Omega \uparrow $
Equilibrium Outcome under Omission
In the specific case documented:
- Knowledge of vulnerability was present: ($K = 1$)
- Proceedings continued without adjustment: ($A = 0$)
- Omission therefore occurred: ($O = 1$)
- Ownership-load increased: ($\Delta \Omega \uparrow$)
- Coherence was not restored: ($\Delta c \not\uparrow$)
Accordingly:
$ \Sigma(\Delta c - \Delta \Omega) < 0 $
Truth-Variant Determination
$ \boxed{ \Sigma(\Delta c - \Delta \Omega) < 0 } $
This is the procedural detriment condition under the Truth-Variant equilibrium model established by formal knowledge of vulnerability followed by continuation without adjustment.
Conclusion
The acceptance of the claim by the Civil National Business Centre, contrasted with subsequent refusal to plead a Defence and reliance on strike-out alone, reveals a structural imbalance between administrative recognition of justiciable harm and institutional litigation practice.
This disclosure documents that imbalance as a matter of public interest.
References
- Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (Parts 10, 15, 3.4, 24)
- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules
- Equality Act 2010
- Human Rights Act 1998
- Subject Access Request medical disclosure (120+ pages)