An employment tribunal has ordered barrister Michael Engelhardt-Sprack to pay £6,800 in wasted costs. He attempted to conduct a remote final hearing while travelling on two separate German trains. Employment Judge Wedderspoon ruled that attempting to act for the claimant in this manner was negligent, totally inappropriate, unprofessional, and a breach of presidential guidance on remote employment tribunal hearings.
The tribunal had granted Engelhardt-Sprack permission to appear remotely on the first day of the May 2025 hearing. This was due to childcare commitments and his residency in Germany while maintaining his legal practice in the UK. The initial day of proceedings was scheduled to address procedural housekeeping and a contested disclosure application, with the respondent represented in person at the Birmingham Employment Tribunal by the legal team of Gitpod GmbH.
The Sequence of Events on the Trains
The complications began when Engelhardt-Sprack failed to appear on time for the video link. He joined the session 20 minutes late wearing headphones while aboard a moving German train. Although the claimant’s counsel submitted in written briefs that he had found a quiet location on the train, the tribunal firmly rejected this recollection.
Employment Judge Wedderspoon noted that background noise from other passengers could be clearly heard. This rendered the environment entirely unsuitable for a final hearing. The proceedings were initially paused to give the barrister time to find a stationary, quiet location. However, rather than waiting at a station, Engelhardt-Sprack boarded a second train and attempted to resume his appearance.
The second attempt fared no better. It suffered from poor internet connectivity and heavy background noise that made it exceptionally difficult to hear his submissions. Consequently, the tribunal adjourned the hearing until the following day, requiring the barrister to appear in person at the Birmingham Employment Tribunal.
Tribunal Findings and Wasted Costs
In his written apologies to the tribunal, Engelhardt-Sprack explained his original intentions. He had planned to split his journey from Munich to Birmingham and secure a private room along the route. However, due to unexpected childcare difficulties, he departed later than planned. This pushed his travel into the day of the hearing. He stated he boarded the second train out of concern that he would otherwise miss the second day entirely.
The tribunal noted that while the barrister apologized, he gave no acceptable explanation for his failure to alert the tribunal or the respondent’s legal team before the proceedings started. Advance warning could have prevented unnecessary travel and financial expenditures.
In a reconsideration judgment, Judge Wedderspoon concluded that conducting a remote hearing from a train amounted to actionable negligence. The barrister failed to act with the competence reasonably expected of ordinary legal professionals. As a result, Engelhardt-Sprack was ordered to pay the first respondent, Gitpod GmbH, £6,767.44. This covered wasted counsel fees, solicitor costs, travel expenses, hotel stays, and the attendance costs of a trainee solicitor.
Broader Legal Implications of Remote Working
This case has reignited professional debates across the UK legal sector regarding the boundaries of remote work, often colloquially termed “working from trains” or WFT. While remote and hybrid hearings introduced during the pandemic have largely streamlined court processes, senior judges and regulators continue to emphasize that remote attendance remains a privilege governed by strict professional standards.
Legal authorities maintain that participants appearing remotely must guarantee absolute confidentiality, professional backdrops, and interruption-free environments. Moving public transportation systems inherently fail to provide these conditions. The ruling serves as a stark warning to legal practitioners that technological flexibility does not override the fundamental dignity and procedural requirements of formal court proceedings.
