A law firm partner has been fined for harassing and victimising another partner because of his advanced age and religion.

Anup Shah, a partner who runs Mayfair-based private equity specialists CVS, fell out with 'NVDB' after the lawyer retired and returned as a consultant. When NVDB asked to leave the firm, Shah refused and sent him an email copying in other staff asking, “Why all this hatred? Maybe you need to seek help”, and stating, “I thought Catholic Christians would know better than to spread such hatredness especially during Christmas!” 

In the same month NVDB refused to testify on the firm's behalf against a friend who had brought redundancy proceedings against CVS. Shah emailed him, “You are a very bitter old man”. Shah, a sprightly 54, subsequently sent another email accusing NVDB of being an unChristian parasite who had lost his marbles: 

  • “...it will be ok for me to go around saying that you are a fraud or that you are a bitter old man who has lost his marbles or that you are out to destroy [CVS] or that you are probably going senile”
  • “You call yourself a Christian and instead of spreading goodwill during Christmas, you write comments which were clearly designed to spread bad will and damage morale”
  • “I guess you don’t have the brains to think things through" 
  • "The fact of the matter is that you were long past your sell by date and we should have got rid of you years ago"
  • "The only reason I kept you on was loyalty but I should have realised you were just a parasite”
    Age Concern

Shah also wrote to NVDB demanding £438 for the renewal of his practising certificate. When NVDB pointed out that his consultancy agreement did not require him to pay for it, he received a new demand for £5,615.00 in respect of all his previous certificates.

An employment tribunal found that Shah had harassed, victimised and discriminated against NVDB on the grounds of his age and religion, and ordered the partner and CVS to pay him £18,509.00 as compensation for injury to his feelings. But the SDT ruled that the comments had caused only "a limited degree of harm", and fined Shah £2,000.
 
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 05 May 17 11:07

I wonder what the tribunal's decision would have been had the religious comments been directed against a muslim as opposed to a christian.

Anonymous 05 May 17 11:18

Anon at 10:07: What a horrible comment! Are you insinuating somehow that the RoP, PBUI, is given some exalted, protected status?
Anyway, the answer is: Diane Abbott would have been asked to set the fine. And it would have been £2.50, no wait, £20,000, no, £eleventy billion, no, hang on...

Roll On Friday 05 May 17 12:21

Not wise to make those kinds of comments at all. What was the point of it? All we solicitors know much better than anyone else things we write can be used in future.

Anonymous 05 May 17 14:38

"Shah also wrote to NVDB demanding £438 for the renewal of his practising certificate. When NVDB pointed out that his consultancy agreement did not require him to pay for it, he received a new demand for £5,615.00 in respect of all his previous certificates."

Mega lols. He must have a brilliant approach to client billing.