COLCHESTER MP Bob Russell has been hauled before an employment tribunal accused of wrongly firing an alleged “whistleblower”.

However, the complainant’s evidence has been slammed as “a smear campaign” while he says the MP has carried out a “character assasination”.

The Lib Dem appeared at a hearing in Bury St Edmunds yesterday after a complaint by former employee John Scott.

Mr Scott, a part-time assistant case worker at Mr Russell’s constituency office at Magdalen Hall, Wimpole Road, claims his dismissal last year was the result of a breach of contract, alleged “whistleblowing” and sex discrimination.

Mr Scott, who is in his sixties and represented himself, told the pre-hearing review he also wished to pursue a claim of disability discrimination.

Judge David Skinner temporarily prevented him from reading a statement containing more details of his allegations, including information about who he may have passed information to in a whistleblowing role.

But Mr Russell’s solicitor, Jayne Scott, from Ellisons, told Judge Skinner that Mr Scott’s recently submitted evidence was “full of inaccuracies and falsehoods”.

She said: “It raises serious allegations and is largely a smear campaign, to be frank.

“We will be making an application for Mr Scott to curtail himself somewhat and perhaps produce a case statement that actually addresses the issues.”

Mr Scott defended his statement, which may be revealed at a further pre-hearing review in October, denying that he wanted to “have his day in court”.

He said: “My witness statement is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

“I have sworn on the Bible and I would like to deliver it.”

He later said Mr Russell’s statement included “unpleasant” claims and “character assassinations”.

The hearing in October will rule on an application by Mrs Scott that Mr Scott’s case does not have a reasonable prospect of success and should not be heard at a full tribunal hearing.

Judge Skinner will hear an expenses claim by Mrs Scott and decide if Mr Scott’s submission of his evidence shortly before yesterday’s hearing was the reason why a further hearing will be needed.

The hearing continues.