Moore, now a partner at the
It is understood she made the decision not to pursue her case — for which a hearing had been scheduled for December — early last week. There had been no discussions between Moore and Freshfields to come to an agreement when she dropped her case.
The news comes as it emerges that Freshfields is looking to recoup its costs from the Bloxham hearing earlier this summer, with the firm setting the ball rolling on a costs claim with the Central London Employment Tribunal early last week. Market estimates put the costs of the case somewhere between £250,000 and £500,000, but the firm will only claim costs on the points which it believes are misguided, meaning the potential pay-out will be far smaller.
A pay-out of any sum over £10,000 would first have to be approved by the county court.
Dawsons, the firm advising Bloxham, has said it will be contesting any claim Freshfields makes, saying in a statement: “Peter Bloxham will be vigorously defending the wholly misconceived application for a costs order by Freshfields in respect of his recent age discrimination claim.”
For Freshfields to succeed in claiming back costs it will have to prove that in bringing the claim Bloxham acted “vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or the bringing or conducting of proceedings was misconceived”.
At a nine-day hearing at the employment tribunal over the summer Bloxham alleged that Freshfields effectively forced him to retire through the changes to the pension scheme which affected his entitlements.
However, the tribunal unanimously ruled that while Freshfields had been discriminatory on the grounds of age when the new pensions provisions were introduced, it “comfortably passed” the test of whether the reforms were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Bloxham has until next week to appeal the tribunal’s decision of 10 October. If an appeal is accepted by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, it is likely that Freshfields’ costs claim will fail.
The claims of both the former partners relate to the controversial changes made last year to Freshfields’ pension scheme, which saw retiring partners granted less generous terms than under the previous system. Partners were given the option of either accepting the reduced terms or retiring from the partnership in order to retain the greater benefits of the earlier arrangement.
On both cases Freshfields turned to Lewis Silkin, while
Bloxham bar set high by Freshfields, legalweek.com/legalvillage.
