A land registry lawyer has been unsuccessful in his claim for unfair dismissal after he was sacked for calling a client’s father-in-law a “nonce” and engaging in a campaign of harassment.
Paul Farthing, who referred to himself as a “government lawyer”, was found to have “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.
Mr Farthing was dismissed from his role at HM Land Registry for what was described as “methodical and calculating” harassment that was “inappropriate and, at times, abusive and malicious”.
He had claimed his actions were a result of a brain injury that made him “impulsive”.
At an employment tribunal in Swansea, Mr Farthing brought claims against HM Land Registry for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, failure to make reasonable adjustments based on his disability, and disability discrimination. All of his claims were rejected.
Mr Farthing began working as an Assistant Land Registrar in April 2022, handling legal issues, until his dismissal for gross misconduct in November 2023.
During his employment, he sustained a traumatic brain injury and also suffered from anxiety.
Ms Williams lodged a complaint in June 2023, alleging that Mr Farthing was misusing his position to influence others against her on social media. She also claimed he had accessed Land Registry records to obtain information about her and her husband’s farm property.
Ms Williams said that a breakdown in their business relationship in late 2022 had led to mutual accusations of harassment and bullying, with police even issuing Mr Farthing a letter of non-trespass on her property. She further accused him of abusive calls and social media posts, and of making false allegations to her school and the police.
An investigation by the Land Registry found that Mr Farthing had posted on social media that Ms Williams was unfit to teach children due to potential “mental health issues”. He threatened to “go public” with these accusations if no action was taken against her, citing risks to “the reputation of what is becoming a very reputable comprehensive school”.
He also said on social media that Mrs Williams’ father-in-law was “a convicted nonce” who had “served jail time for this” and urged people to “watch their kids carefully”.
Furthermore, he used his position to access and share details of how Ms Williams and her husband held the beneficial interest in their farm. Mr Farthing did not dispute these actions.
He argued that his brain injury caused emotional lability, leading him to react “impulsively”, and that this should be considered. However, Jonathon Mudford, who conducted the investigation, concluded that Mr Farthing’s actions were repeated and not merely a “knee jerk reaction”.
Mr Mudford said: “You have spoken throughout this process about reacting to events and I have carefully considered and reflected on your reactions throughout the process. However, 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.”
The Land Registry concluded 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. He was dismissed with immediate effect. His appeal, which included accusations of discriminatory investigation due to his disability, was unsuccessful.
Employment Judge Stephen Povey ruled that there was no discrimination in Mr Mudford’s investigation process. He praised the thoroughness of the investigation, stating: “The time and work taken to issue the written decision was also self-evident. Mr Mudford’s written decision was detailed, comprehensive, wholly based upon the evidence, properly reasoned and written with due care and diligence.”
Judge Povey added: “We did not underestimate the work which went into its drafting, which was the product of a detailed, thorough, independent and transparent decision-making process. It was also consistent with the care and consideration demonstrated by Mr Mudford throughout, including for Mr Farthing’s welfare.”
Judge Povey said 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.
“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.”
