In a ruling that sends shockwaves through the legal world, an employment tribunal has found that a partner at one of Britain's most feared libel law firms was hired specifically to weaponise the legal system for a personal vendetta.
The case centres on a bitter dispute between Mr Justice Nicklin, a senior high court judge, and his former personal assistant, Sarah Fitch. The tribunal heard that after their working relationship broke down, the judge turned to Carter-Ruck – a firm synonymous with high-stakes defamation cases for the rich and powerful.
A Hiring for Retribution
The tribunal panel made the extraordinary finding that the judge's instruction of Carter-Ruck partner, Adam Speker KC, was not a routine step in litigation. Instead, it was a move made "in furtherance of getting even" with Ms Fitch.
This suggests the hiring was less about seeking legitimate legal redress and more about deploying formidable legal firepower to settle a personal score, a tactic often criticised as Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).
Breach of Trust and the 'Nuclear Option'
The background to the case involves a breakdown of trust. Ms Fitch, who had worked for the judge for over a decade, made a subject access request (SAR) – a legal right to access personal data – after her employment ended.
The tribunal was scathing in its assessment of the judge's response, describing his decision to involve a top-tier libel lawyer as a "nuclear option" that was "wholly disproportionate." This move, the ruling stated, effectively transformed a private employment matter into an intimidating legal battle.
Implications for Legal Ethics and Power Imbalances
The ruling casts a stark light on the ethical responsibilities of powerful legal professionals and their clients. It raises urgent questions about the use of expensive, aggressive litigation tactics against individuals with vastly fewer resources.
For the legal community, the case serves as a potent reminder that the courts may scrutinise not just the arguments presented, but the motives behind hiring particular legal heavyweights. The judgement implies that using a firm like Carter-Ruck in a private dispute can be seen as an act of intimidation in itself.
The tribunal ultimately found in favour of Ms Fitch, awarding her £15,000 for injury to feelings caused by the judge's actions, which included a failed bid to have her committed to prison for alleged contempt.
