Solicitor's discrimination claims against SRA dismissed over jurisdiction and disability status
A non-practising solicitor failed to prove disability and had his discrimination and victimisation claims against the Solicitors Regulation Authority dismissed after the tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over most allegations.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #age-discrimination
- #race-discrimination
- #disability-discrimination
- #jurisdiction
- #qualifications-body
- #solicitor
Key facts
- The claimant is a non-practising solicitor who alleged discrimination by the SRA.
- The SRA investigated the claimant and imposed conditions on his practising certificate.
- The claimant did not appeal the SRA's decisions to the High Court.
- The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over most claims due to alternative appeal routes.
- The claimant failed to prove he was disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
- All discrimination and victimisation claims were dismissed.
Timeline
-
SRA investigation commenced
The SRA wrote to the claimant informing him of a formal investigation into his conduct.
-
Adjudicator's decision
The SRA adjudicator imposed conditions on the claimant's practising certificate and issued a rebuke.
-
First claim presented
The claimant presented his first claim form to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Second claim presented
The claimant presented a second claim form alleging further discrimination.
-
Third claim presented
The claimant presented a third claim form relating to an alleged application as a European lawyer.
-
Preliminary hearing strike out
Employment Judge Meichen struck out claims of unfair dismissal and certain discrimination claims.
-
Final hearing commenced
The final hearing took place over six days in March 2023.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal dismissed all remaining claims, finding lack of jurisdiction and no discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it could hear discrimination complaints when the claimant had an alternative appeal route to the High Court, and whether the claimant met the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all remaining claims of direct age, race and disability discrimination; indirect disability discrimination; failure to make reasonable adjustments; harassment; and victimisation.
Key reasons:
- The tribunal lacked jurisdiction over most claims because the claimant could have challenged the SRA's decisions via statutory appeal to the High Court.
- The claimant did not prove he was disabled under the Equality Act 2010, so disability-related claims failed.
- The remaining claims were either out of time or not substantiated.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If a regulatory body makes a decision affecting you, check whether you have a statutory right of appeal to a higher court before bringing an employment tribunal claim.
- To bring a disability discrimination claim, you must provide medical evidence to show you meet the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.
- Employment tribunals have limited jurisdiction over claims against bodies like the SRA when alternative legal remedies exist.
- Presenting multiple claims without proper legal advice can lead to procedural complications and potential strike-outs.
When a regulatory decision leads to a discrimination claim
This case shows the difficulties that can arise when a professional challenges a regulator's actions through an employment tribunal rather than the established appeal routes. The claimant, a non-practising solicitor, alleged that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) discriminated against him on grounds of age, race and disability when it investigated his conduct and imposed conditions on his practising certificate.
The tribunal found that most of the claimant's complaints were not something it could hear. The SRA's decisions could have been appealed to the High Court under the Solicitors Act 1974, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to step in. This is a key point for anyone considering challenging a regulator: the employment tribunal is not a substitute for the statutory appeal process.
The disability hurdle
A central part of the claimant's case was that he was disabled, but he did not provide sufficient medical evidence to satisfy the legal test under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not shown he had a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his daily activities. Without that, his disability discrimination claims could not succeed.
What this means for similar claims
The decision reinforces that employment tribunals will not hear discrimination complaints where there is a more appropriate legal route, such as an appeal to the High Court. It also highlights the importance of gathering robust medical evidence early if you intend to rely on disability status. For professionals dealing with regulatory bodies, the message is clear: use the appeal mechanisms provided by law, and only bring tribunal claims where you have a solid jurisdictional basis.
Similar cases
Probationary dismissal of electrical engineer: discrimination claims rejected
An electrical engineer dismissed during his probationary period for poor performance and a safety incident failed to prove race, age or disability discrimination. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
Former employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite early conciliation
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after the tribunal found they were presented too late, even though she had started early conciliation.
Apprentice's discrimination claim against college struck out: no employment relationship
A carpentry apprentice who alleged discrimination by New City College had his claims struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction over a further education college.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.