My human rights were breached, says lawyer

Lawyer Robert Varley is actioning both the convenor of the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal and the States following a constructive dismissal and sex discrimination case in which a former colleague of his at law firm Babbe was awarded £114,000 by the tribunal.

Previously he had sought a judicial review of the case, which was rejected by the Royal Court, and is now subject to an appeal.

The States and the tribunal said this new case should not be allowed, since it was a duplication.

In documents outlining his case, Mr Varley, who worked with Katherine Hitchins at Babbe, said that the panel’s publication of the reasons for its decision made ‘serious and highly damaging’ claims against him.

These reasons included ‘highly personal medical and financial information’, he said, which the States went on to publish on its website.

Ms Hitchins resigned from her role at Babbe after Mr Varley made claims against her concerning her behaviour towards him.

The claims by Mr Varley were investigated and dismissed, but the employment tribunal found that Babbe had not understood that Ms Hitchins needed some form of resolution, closure and restoration of her good name and reputation. There were ‘serious process issues’ and the overall approach, aided by the person who investigated the claims, lacked integrity and was significantly flawed, it said in its adjudication.

Mr Varley was not called as a witness by either party at the hearing.

As a result of the personal nature of the information subsequently published by the States, Mr Varley said his rights under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been breached. His action is being brought under the Bailiwick’s Human Rights law.

He wants a ruling to be made that the reasons published by the panel must be redacted before being republished with a note saying that the redacted sections were deemed to be unlawful, or, if published in full, to include a note stating that the references to Mr Varley were unlawful.

He is also seeking a total of £2,049,520 – or damages to be assessed – from the States in lost past and future earnings.

At a preliminary hearing in the Ordinary Division of the Royal Court yesterday, Advocate Penny Grainge, representing the States, and Crown Advocate Emily Bamber, for the convenor, moved for the action to be struck out.

Summarising their arguments, Advocate Grainge said that the judicial review sought by Mr Varley against the States was for the same thing.

If both were to proceed there would inevitably be a duplication of resources required by the States as well as additional costs incurred. ‘There is a real danger of the second defendant, in particular, needing to fight the same battle twice.’

Mr Varley said that if his appeal was upheld and he was able to continue with the judicial review, he would not look to progress this case.

There were not two ‘live’ actions, he said. ‘The judicial review is not a valid claim at present.’

Judge Catherine Fooks reserved her judgement, and the action was adjourned.