Isabella Freeman, the council’s £115,000 a year head of legal, has been something of town hall phantom in recent weeks. Her presence has been felt in the colder and gossipy corridors of Mulberry Place, but as a physical form, she’s not really been seen.
This morning, however, as daylight broke over Anchorage House opposite the town hall, she reappeared–and the three large bags of files she was carrying gave us a clue as to what she’s been up to during her time off work on full pay.
It’s not unusual for a lawyer to be at an Employment Tribunal, of course, but this being Tower Hamlets, there’s always a catch. Ms Freeman, who has recently returned to work, is not defending the council against an aggrieved employee (and there have been plenty of those over the years): this time, she’s the one suing.
The exact details of her case are still unknown because today’s hearing, as Judge Jonathan Ferris himself worried, was “a public hearing in secret”. Due to what even the judge said was a convenient alliance between Ms Freeman, the council and their respective lawyers, the public gallery was barred from seeing any of the witness statements and other documents that were constantly referred to and read quietly during the three hours of legal wrangling.
It means I can’t tell you what Ms Freeman is actually complaining about.
That said, Judge Ferris, who has seen all the documents, sighed he’s pretty much none the wiser either.
“I’m struggling to understand where the thrust of the claimant’s case is,” he said in answer to a request by the council’s barrister John Bowers QC to have the case struck out.
Mr Bowers said: “The claimant is a senior lawyer and she is being advised by a QC. We were expecting some feeling of what this case was about. It should not go to trial because it’s chaotic.”
Judge Ferris: “I don’t know about chaotic, but it looks pretty feeble.”
Ouch! “Chaotic”, “feeble”? Anyone who’s had the pleasure of receiving an ever-so-measured and carefully proofed email threat from Ms Freeman will surely know that accusation is really, really just not fair.
And that’s what her barrister Peter Oldham QC said as well. “That’s not fair. We feel we have a strong case.”
Well, he’ll get his chance to improve it. Judge Ferris ruled against the council’s ‘striking out’ application and set a hearing date for late autumn.
So, what is the case all about? Ms Freeman feels she has been discriminated in some way and her complaint is very much connected to the incorrect legal advice allegedly given to the human resources committee during last year’s costly failure to appoint a new chief executive. A fuller account of that can be read here, here and here.
Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s team have claimed the failure to appoint regeneration director Aman Dalvi has already cost the council in excess of £100,000.
If Ms Freeman is successful, that figure will rise massively. As well as engaging John Bowers QC, who is regarded as one of the country’s top barristers in employment, the council has also hired the biggest (and possibly most expensive) name in employment law for local government: Mark Greenburgh of Wragge & Co solicitors (and a former leader of Buckinghamshire County Council). Talk about aiming howitzers at their own head of legal..
So, if Ms Freeman loses, she’ll face an almighty bill for costs.
Will she blink? (Come to think of it, can she?)
Trial by Jeory 
What brought this on ?
What is the essence of the case ?
I think it is exceptional for either side to get costs at an Employment Tribunal I might be wrong but that’s what I was told when I was involved in one last year.
So does this mean we’ve got to the stage where they’re “going to the mattresses”?
I have to say as a Council Tax payer I have to ask what on earth is the legal and financial justification for the Council
1) on the one hand asking for the case to be struck out – presumably because it is completely feeble and without merit; and
2) hiring “the biggest (and possibly most expensive) name in employment law for local government” to fight the case on the Council’s behalf
Isn’t there a contradiction in there somewhere?
OK – can we now start the sweepstake for how much information is going to leak before the Autumn re:
* what Ms Freeman knows which has kept her in the employment of LBTH for far too long (the proverbial “who knows where the bodies are buried” question) given her career history and the fact she has managed in the past to behave in ways which are completely unlike other senior local government lawyers of my acquaintance
* what exactly has precipitated this case
* who’s going to “cop it” at the end of the day
Let the moles start digging!
I’m minded to say that the only reason I can think of as to why this was a “public hearing in secret” is that it must relate to the employment terms and conditions and/or disciplinary processes of an individual and legal and binding contracts relating to the terms of past payoffs which must never ever be spoken about……..
At a rough guess – and it is only a guess – I’d say the Council wants to fire her for some reason (eg maybe for providing incompetent advice which has cost them a big sum of money?) – and on that basis does not propose to honour her contract of employment re “letting her go” on the basis she’s breached it and hence does not deserve a penny.
I’d love to know whether you can “sue” your employer without first exhausting all the internal disciplinary processes – and I don’t think you can so I’m assuming these have already occurred.
Any advance on my hypothesis?
Of course those who might not want people to speculate about what’s going on at the taxpayer’s expense (as a matter of public interest) should reflect on why they didn’t manage to avoid arriving at this situation in the first place.
Judge said he had not fully read the papers and agreed the case had not yet been fully pleaded due to confidentiality. The council lost all its arguments, a bit PREMATURE aren’t you Ted?
Premature in what way exactly?
I wasn’t present. I have not read the notes of the hearing.
The defendant’s applicant to chuck-out the claimant’s case MUST have been based on the defendant’s knowledge of the claim (gained before the matter reached court if pre-action letters detailing the grievance were served) and also from the claimant’s Statement of Claim created before she started her action in a court of law.
Why would an experienced solicitor, meaning the claimant Isabella Margaret Freeman, who became a solicitor 22 years ago on 15 January 1991 and whose declared specialities as a practising solicitor are:
Francais
Administrative and public law
Civil litigation
Employment law
submit an incomplete pleading to the Court ?
The claimant chose the exact date her claim would be submitted to the court yet failed to ask for extra time, it seems.
Usually the Statement of Claim proves a good summary of the claim’s merit but not, it seems, on this occasion. ‘An Observer’ claims “not yet been fully pleaded due to confidentiality”. Strange the alleged ‘confidentiality’ didn’t prevent the filing of the claim with the court.
Certainly worth a trip to the trial. Bet the seats will be packed.
Will ‘An Observer’ disclose the defendant’s arguments ?
I’m sure curious readers will be interested to know exactly who was “observing” yesterday’s proceedings.
In the tribunal room were: the judge; Ms Freeman and her barrister Peter Oldham QC; the council’s lawyers Mark Greenburgh and John Bowers QC; the council’s head of HR Simon Kilbey and another representative from or for the council sitting next to him; a reporter from East End Life (we look forward to thatstory this Sunday…); Cllr Peter Golds; me; and another journalist.
I’m v doubtful any of the QCs and the highly regarded solicitor would bother making that kind of comment on this blog, and neither would the hacks there, so that kinda narrows down the people who would have knowledge of the detail, doesn’t it…
So ‘An Observer’, re-read my post, see the bit about the council losing its application to strike out, and tell me the judge did not criticise
yourMs Freeman’s case.You’re of course spot on with this observation, Ted, but perhaps you shouldn’t have made it – she’ll only sue you too…
So how much is this going to cost us tax-payers this time. I am absolutely disgusted with this administration. In the last few years as a result of their sheer incompetence and mal-adminstration, LBTH has paid out hundreds of thousands of pounds to employees and ex-employees. Under Lutfur, as leader of the council and now as mayor, senior managers within the council have now been paid out over a £1million…..disgraceful.
They bang on about the impact of the Tory cuts (which I think is wrong), but their incompetence is costing us millions on top. Wonder how many extra teachers, social workers, advice workers or other front-line services this money could’ve been used for instead of paying out to senior council officers suing the council.
Ted, any chance you can compile a list of these payouts, golden handshakes and the other costs with recruitment/headhunters and share with us?
Martin Smith – £500,000 golden handshake
Kevan Collins – Was he given a golden handshake?
Aman Dalvi – £100k out of court settlement
Lutfur Ali – Any payout and other cost?
Chris Naylor – ???
Isobel Cattermole – ???
Why is it, if its not incompetence, poor leadership and chaos from this Lutfur administration we have a mass exodus of senior managers from LBTH and those still here suing and getting large payouts.
Ridiculous that you should blame Lutfur for Dalvi’s compensation. It wasn’t Lutfur who got sued for prejudice and settled at ratepayers’ expense.
Apart from that, here is the list you asked for of people who’ve had golden goodbyes:
Martin Smith
Lutfur and his gang ARE responsible – they have created a big huge mess in the Town Hall. It’s one thing after another. As the saying goes…..the buck stops with him. If he was a effective leader and had the leadership skills and qualities, he would’ve compromised and found a suitable way forward and took people with him, instead of leaving the council without a Chief Exec and then the subsequent legal challenges. Their vendetta and personal battle is what caused this. I’m in no way saying Labour is not to blame either.
– They appointed a inexperienced and unsuitable Asst. Chief Exec, who turned out to be moonlighting and therefore scamming the council – how much did that whole saga cost the council
– They have a mass exodus of senior officers leaving the council, resulting in then all the costs associated with recruiting to these posts.
– The reputation cost to the borough is huge – its comparable to Hackney in the 80s, where no one wanted to go near that borough.
In truth its not Lutfur who is running the council – its his IFE masters via Alibor Chowdhury who are running the council.
I get the feeling that the actual public – the taxpayer – as opposed to the self-interested politicians maybe also ought to get some kind of representation of their public interest in the level of expenditure of taxpayers’ money on this hearing. After all we’re the mugs who are paying for it.
Don’t anybody try and suggest that the Council’s representations will be speaking on behalf of the public of Tower Hamlets! The profligacy of the current Cabinet (expenses etc) has already amply demonstrated they really don’t give a stuff about how taxpayers’ money is spent. They wouldn’t know what leadership by example on financial matters is if it bit them on the proverbial!
That’s not to say that the Judge won’t have an opinion on that matter. In fact I’m rather hoping he will have.
Looks as if he has a very good understanding of local government http://www.selbornechambers.co.uk/barristers/jonathan_ferris/
In apportioning the blame for the fiasco surrounding the failed appointment of a Chief Executive; it looks as if Ms. Freeman is getting in her retaliation first.
Reblogged this on Sundial Centre Shipton Street and commented:
What’s going on here – the council being attacked legally by the head of their own legal services – she must know what she’s doing – and they must be worried of the outcome to bring in such big guns.
Corporate madness gone loony. The lunatics are running the asylum. Where is Eric Pickles in all this? Has he got an observer too? I think we should be told.
I think there should be a referendum on whether people actually want an elected council in Tower Hamlets or a Mayor… what have they ever actually done other than fill their pockets and divide communities? I would vote for a Sir Humphrey to run this borough remotely…
Grave Maurice has an excellent suggestion: A Public Referendum on whether the extravagant Mayoral Circus should be scrapped and plain ordinary councillors should run the council.
I’m sure me and all my dead accessors should be able to register for votes at generous Tower Hamlets (the Postal Voters friend) despite being buried in far away countries.
What I don’t understand is why Isabella Freeman is suing LBTH when she is supposed to be the mayor’s enforcer (henchman/henchwoman) and LBTH is being run (or abused) by the mayor and his gang. Isn’t Isabella effectively suing her own boss, the mayor ?
I’m just confused. Perhaps its time I wandered back to Henley and stick my toes in the gently flowing river.
CC.
Here’s a clue.
1. Given the hearing is at an ‘Employment Tribunal’, I presume the dispute is concerning an employment matter.
2. Isabella Freeman is a chief officer.
The employment of chief officers is not within the Mayor’s purview – as you may have gathered from the whole CEO debacle. The competent entity for that part of the council is this bunch: http://moderngov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=330
Oldford 1,
Thank you very much. Your explanation increases my understanding of English local government.
Ted,
Please tell us, meaning me actually, the date and place of the trial of Freeman v LBTH.
Thank you.
CC.
Isabella’s case is due to be determined on Tuesday 12 November 2012.
Any ideas as to the location and the starting time ?
Curious, should that be 2013?
Hi David,
I was going to respond YES but now I am unsure about that date which originated from someone else.
According to the London, East (also known as East London) Employment Tribunal there are two cases of Freeman v LBTH.
Cases 320 3084/2012 and 320 1103/2013. The second case is linked to the first case.
There is no sign of any hearing on 12 November 2013. There is an 8 day hearing due to commence on Tuesday 13 August 2013. Precise starting time available on the previous day otherwise the general starting time is 10:00 hours.
The hearing will be conducted at
2nd Floor
Anchorage House
2 Clove Crescent
E14 2BE
Phone 0207 538 6161
Fax 0207 538 6210
Location information at
http://www.appeals-service.gov.uk/Venues/Birmingham/eastLondonTribunalService.htm
which states (but unfortunately omits TAXI information so essential to the presence of the deputy mayor)
“By Road
Anchorage House sits adjacent to the A13 and Aspen Way, giving dual carriageway access within 10–15 minutes west to the City and east to London City Airport and the A406 (North Circular Road). It is also adjacent to the A102 (M) Blackwall Tunnel approach.
By Rail/Underground
East India Dock DLR Station (three minute walk from Anchorage House)
Follow footbridge and signs for Mulberry House.
Blackwall DLR Station (four minute walk from Anchorage House)
By Bus
Buses that go through East India Dock
Bus 277 – Leamouth – Blackwall Station (DLR) – Canary Wharf – Westferry – Limehouse – Burdett Road.
Burdett Road – Mile End – Grove Road – Victoria Park – Lauriston Road – Well Street – Hackney Central- Graham Road – Dalston Junction – Balls Pond Road – St Paul’s Road – Highbury & Islington.
Bus 15 calling at: East Ham – Upton Park – Plaistow – Canning Town – Poplar – Blackwall Station (DLR) – Limehouse – Commercial Road – Aldgate – Tower Hill – Cannon Street – St Paul’s – Ludgate Circus – Aldwych – Trafalgar Square – Piccadilly Circus – Oxford Circus – Marble Arch – Paddington Station.
Bus N15 calls at: All above locations, including Romford – Barking (then onto East Ham).
Bus 115 calling at: East Ham – Upton Park – Plaistow – Canning Town – Poplar (All Saints DLR) – Limehouse – Commercial Road – Aldgate.
Bus D6 calling at: Crossharbour (Asda supermarket) – Limehouse – Prestons Road – Poplar – East India Dock Road – Burdett Road – Mile End Station – Grove Road – Roman Road – Bethnal Green – Cambridge Heath – Mare Street – Hackney Central Station – Hackney.
Bus D8 calling at: Stratford – Bow Bridge – Bow Church – Campbell Road – Devons Road – Crisp Street – Poplar (All Saints DLR) – Cartier Circle – Canary Wharf -Westferry Circus – South Quay Station – March Wall – Cross Harbour (Asda Superstore).
Bus D7 calling at: Poplar (DLR) – Preston Road – Cubitt Town – Manchester Road – Island Gardens Station – Millwall Dock – Canary Wharf – Westferry Circus – Limehouse – Burdett Road – Mile End Station.
From Blackwall Tunnel – Bus 108 calling at: Stratford – Bow Bridge – Bromley-By-Bow – Poplar (Blackwall Tunnel) – North Greenwich – Greenwich Hospital – Blackheath – Lewisham.
Facilities and Accessibility
The venue is accessible by wheelchair. Disabled parking is available onsite and is free for three hours. Normal parking restrictions apply.
Refreshments are available from shops and restaurant in Clove Crescent and along the main roads close to the venue.”
Hope that helps.
CC
August date was vacated at Monday’s hearing. Both parties complained it interfered with holiday plans. It’s now November.
The Employment Tribunal assures me the case file is in “typing” (where there is a backlog). When the file returns to the office the dates will be revised on their computer system. Officially the hearing is still 8 days starting on 13 August 2013.
Actually it will be 8 days starting on, as Ted confirms, Tuesday 12 November 2013.
Will the hearing room be sufficient large to accommodate the parties, the press, and the public including our friend ‘An Observer’ ?
At last some real excitement comes to Tower Hamlets; admission is free. What astonishing secrets will be revealed ?
CC.
Thanks. This is fun fun fun. Am cancelling my holiday to attend.