4 July 2012

Union did not victimise member by refusing to continue representation

Croad v UCU is a case  concerning a university lecturer with disabilities who sought help from her union to bring a disability discrimination claim against her employers. She became dissatisfied with how they were handling the matter for her and complained. They eventually withdrew from acting for her, for a number of reasons, including that she had ignored their advice. She alleged that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments, and had victimised her.

The EAT upheld that the union's solicitors had not acted unlawfully in refusing to continue to act for her against the university, once proceedings had started against the union. Professionally, they could not continue where there was a potential conflict of interest.

"There would be the clearest conflict of interest to represent a party in litigation knowing that it was likely you would be the defendant in a claim by the Claimant in respect of the very matters in which you had represented her."

This finding by the EAT meant that there was no need for a finding as to whether the burden of proof in the claimant's favour because it was abundantly clear that the reason for their conduct was their professional duty. The EAT went on to express the view that the burden of proof would in any event have rested with the claimant in this particular case under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.