Singh v Reading Borough Council

Judicial proceedings immunity protects parties, as well as witnesses, from civil claims based on evidence obtained, prepared or deployed for use at trial, including discussions with a witness about that evidence. The protection applies even where the alleged conduct is malicious, improper or said to involve procuring false testimony. It cannot be avoided by pleading the complaint as constructive dismissal, conspiracy, discrimination or another cause of action, or by adding it to existing proceedings. The critical question is whether the alleged wrongdoing is part of participation in the judicial process. The immunity does not extend to independent investigative conduct, such as fabricating primary evidence before the judicial process, where the evidence is merely incidental or tangential to the wrong. The appeal was dismissed.

The claimant, a headteacher employed by Reading Borough Council at Moorlands Primary School, brought Employment Tribunal proceedings alleging racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation. After the respondents served a witness statement from the school business manager, the claimant resigned and amended her claim to allege constructive unfair and discriminatory dismissal. She said that the respondents had placed the witness under undue pressure to produce false or inaccurate evidence for the proceedings.

The Employment Tribunal held that the witness statement and the conduct connected with its preparation attracted absolute judicial proceedings immunity. It struck out the relevant pleaded paragraphs and ruled that the witness could not be questioned about the circumstances in which the statement was prepared. The central issue on appeal was whether the alleged pressure to procure false evidence fell outside the immunity.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal correctly held that the contents of the witness statement and the conduct connected with its preparation attracted absolute judicial proceedings immunity. The relevant paragraphs of the amended claim were therefore outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and were properly struck out.
2. The immunity is a public-policy rule protecting the integrity and effectiveness of the judicial process. It applies to parties, witnesses and other participants, and extends beyond evidence actually given in court to statements and conduct forming part of the preparation of evidence for trial. A party is protected in obtaining and serving witness statements and in discussing with a witness the evidence to be given.
3. The claimant’s allegation could not be separated from the witness statement. The alleged pressure, the discussions about the statement and the alleged falsity of its contents were all relied on as the basis for the constructive dismissal claims. The immunity therefore applied whether the claim was framed as constructive dismissal, discrimination, conspiracy or another cause of action. It also applied although the witness was not a party and no personal claim was made against her.
4. Darker did not assist the claimant. That case concerned the fabrication of primary evidence during investigation, before participation in the judicial process. The present allegation concerned the procurement of witness testimony for trial by parties defending litigation. That was a material distinction. The immunity does not cover conduct which is merely incidental or tangential to the judicial process, but the alleged conduct here fell within it.
5. The immunity was not avoided by adding the constructive dismissal claims to existing proceedings. The substance of the allegation, rather than the pleading device, governed. The Tribunal was also entitled to prohibit questioning directed to the circumstances in which the statement was prepared, particularly where no positive case or particulars identifying the alleged wrongdoers had been pleaded. Directions were made for submissions on the related stay appeal.

• Employment Tribunal: held that the witness statement and conduct connected with its preparation attracted absolute judicial proceedings immunity, struck out the relevant paragraphs of the amended claim and prohibited questioning about the preparation of the statement.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s analysis and conclusions. The EAT directed submissions concerning the related appeal against the stay of the constructive dismissal claims.