Lawyer Paul Farthing, sacked for ‘nonce’ slur, claims his brain injury is to blame

A land lawyer has failed to claim unfair dismissal after his client was sacked for calling his father-in-law “once” and running a campaign of harassment.

It was revealed that Paul Farthing, who described himself as a “government lawyer”, “harassed” his client Samantha Williams on social media, labeled her a “narcissist” and contacted the school where she worked as a teacher.

Claiming that he had “mental health issues” and was unfit to work with children, he threatened to “go public” with her accusations.

Mr Farthing was dismissed from his position at HM Land Registry for “inappropriate and at times abusive and malicious” harassment, described as “methodical and calculated” harassment.

He claimed his actions were the result of a brain injury that made him “impulsive.”

At an employment tribunal in Swansea, Mr Farthing brought proceedings against HM Land Registry for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, failure to make reasonable adjustments based on his disability and disability discrimination. All his claims were rejected.

Mr Farthing began working as an Assistant Registrar of Deeds in April 2022 and handled legal matters until he was dismissed for gross misconduct in November 2023.

During his time working, he suffered a traumatic brain injury and also suffered from anxiety.

Ms Williams lodged a complaint in June 2023, alleging Mr Farthing had abused his position to influence others against her on social media. She also claimed that she accessed Land Registry records to obtain information about her and her husband’s farm properties.

Ms Williams said a breakdown in working relations in late 2022 led to accusations of mutual harassment and bullying, with police even issuing a letter to Mr Farthing telling him not to trespass on his property. She also accused him of making harassing calls and social media posts and making false allegations to his school and the police.

An investigation by the Land Registry revealed 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 “make public” these accusations if no action was taken against him, citing risks to the “reputation of what has become a highly respected comprehensive school”.

He also said on social media that Ms Williams’ father-in-law was a “convicted person” who “served prison for this” and urged people to “look carefully at their children”.

He also used his position to access and share details about how Mrs. Williams and her husband came to own beneficial interests in their farm. Mr Farthing did not object to these actions.

He argued that the brain damage caused emotional lability, leading him to react “impulsively” and that this should be taken into account. But Jonathon Mudford, who led the investigation, concluded Mr Farthing’s actions were repeated and not just a “knock-on reaction”.

Mr Mudford said: “You have spoken about your response to events throughout this process and I have carefully considered and reflected on your reactions throughout the process. However, it is clear that your actions and negative behavior, which you have displayed on and off for months, are systematic and calculated and do not arise as a result of your brain damage.”

The Land Registry concluded that Mr Farthing 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 immediately dismissed. His appeal, which included accusations of a discriminatory investigation due to his disability, failed.

Employment Judge Stephen Povey ruled there was no discrimination in the process of investigating Mr Mudford. Praising the thoroughness of the investigation, he said: “The time and work taken to produce the written decision was also evident. Mr Mudford’s written decision was detailed, comprehensive, fully based on the evidence, suitably reasoned and written with due care and attention.”

Judge Povey added: “We did not underestimate the drafting work, which was the product of a detailed, thorough, independent and transparent decision-making process. It was also consistent with the care and consideration Mr Mudford gave throughout, including to Mr Farthing’s welfare.”

Judge Povey said Mr Farthing’s behavior was “inappropriate” and his dismissal was fair.

It concluded: “His public social media posts were clearly inappropriate and, at times, abusive and malicious. His postings were never disputed. “Based on these admitted posts, the Land Registry was entitled to find that he had repeatedly and seriously 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.

“This was all the more so where he accessed land registry data, shared it with others, breached the Land Registry’s social media policy, acted in a way that he and the Civil Service Code of Conduct were entitled to conclude had been breached, and their reputation was seriously damaged as a result.”