Employment Tribunal: Michael Engelhardt-Sprack Remote Hearing Costs Order

• Barrister Michael Engelhardt-Sprack was ordered to pay £6,767.44 in wasted costs after attempting to conduct an Employment Tribunal hearing remotely from a train in Germany.
• Despite having permission for a remote appearance due to childcare, his environment was deemed 'totally inappropriate' by Employment Judge Wedderspoon, leading to the hearing's adjournment.
• The tribunal found Mr. Engelhardt-Sprack negligent for failing to act with expected professional competence and for not warning parties about his travel difficulties.
• The costs award to Gitpod GmbH, which rebranded as Ona in September 2025, covered counsel's fees, solicitor costs, travel, hotel expenses, and a trainee solicitor's attendance.
• This case highlights the critical importance of adhering to remote hearing guidance and professional conduct standards to avoid significant financial penalties.

This case serves as a stark reminder for legal professionals regarding remote hearing professional conduct and the potential for a negligence remote hearing finding to result in significant financial penalties, underscoring the importance of ensuring a suitable environment and proactive communication for all virtual proceedings.

A barrister has been ordered to pay a substantial sum in wasted costs following an unsuccessful attempt to participate in an Employment Tribunal hearing remotely while traveling by train in Germany. Michael Engelhardt-Sprack, who practices in the UK but resides in Germany, had secured permission to attend the final hearing virtually due to childcare commitments. However, the initial day of proceedings was severely disrupted by his chosen environment.

Upon the hearing commencing, Mr. Engelhardt-Sprack was initially absent from the screen, eventually joining approximately 20 minutes later. He appeared wearing headphones, visibly on a train. Employment Judge Wedderspoon noted significant background noise from other passengers, deeming the conditions unsuitable for conducting a final hearing. The proceedings were consequently paused, allowing Mr. Engelhardt-Sprack an opportunity to find a more appropriate, quieter location. Instead of waiting at the station, he boarded a second train and again tried to rejoin the hearing. The judge observed that the internet connection was poor, and it was difficult to hear the barrister over the persistent background noise, describing the situation as "totally inappropriate to conduct the hearing in this environment." The hearing was ultimately adjourned until the following day, when Mr. Engelhardt-Sprack appeared in person at the Birmingham Employment Tribunal.

In subsequent written submissions, Mr. Engelhardt-Sprack explained that he had planned to break his journey from Munich to Birmingham to secure a private room, but childcare difficulties prevented him from departing until the morning of the hearing. He offered an apology, though the tribunal highlighted the absence of any explanation for his failure to notify either the tribunal or the respondent before the hearing began.

In a reconsideration judgment, Judge Wedderspoon concluded that conducting a remote hearing from a moving train was "totally inappropriate and unprofessional," falling short of the expected Employment Tribunal remote guidance. While the tribunal did not find his actions to be improper or unreasonable in a broader sense, it determined that his conduct amounted to negligence. This finding was based on his failure to act with "the competence reasonably to be expected of ordinary members of the profession." Furthermore, the tribunal found Mr. Engelhardt-Sprack negligent for not alerting the tribunal or the respondent's legal teams about his travel difficulties in advance. Such prior warning, the tribunal stated, "could have avoided unnecessary attendance and cost incurred by the respondents."

The tribunal determined that the aborted hearing day directly led to the respondents incurring unnecessary legal and travel expenses. Consequently, Mr. Engelhardt-Sprack was ordered to pay £6,767.44 in barrister wasted costs to the first respondent, Gitpod GmbH, which rebranded as Ona in September 2025. This substantial Michael Engelhardt-Sprack remote hearing costs award covered a range of expenditures, including counsel’s fees, solicitor costs, travel expenses, hotel accommodation, and the attendance of a trainee solicitor.

However, the tribunal declined to award an additional three hours of solicitor time, citing a lack of clarity regarding whether that specific extra work was directly caused by the disrupted hearing. This case serves as a stark reminder for legal professionals regarding remote hearing professional conduct and the potential for a negligence remote hearing finding to result in significant financial penalties, underscoring the importance of ensuring a suitable environment and proactive communication for all virtual proceedings.

This case serves as a stark reminder for legal professionals to adhere strictly to professional conduct standards and remote hearing guidance, even when facing personal challenges. Failure to ensure a suitable environment or communicate issues proactively can lead to significant wasted costs orders for negligence.

Source: Original reporting via Legal Cheek