A City lawyer who is demanding £19 million in compensation for work-place bullying faked a nervous breakdown to secure a larger payout, an employment tribunal was told.

Gill Switalski, 51, the former head of legal affairs at Foreign & Colonial (F&C), an asset management company, pretended that her ordeal left her unfit to work so that she could sue for loss of future earnings, it was claimed yesterday.

While Ms Switalski claimed that bullying from male colleagues had left her in such poor mental health that she was “unable to read a newspaper”, she was being interviewed for jobs at two rival City firms at about the same time, F&C’s lawyers said.

One interview led to a lucrative job offer at a rival asset manager that Ms Switalski initially accepted before changing her mind.

The allegations were made during a hearing at the Central London Employment Tribunal. The hearing had been intended to fix the amount of compensation that Mrs Switalski would receive after two employment tribunals had ruled that she had been subject to discrimination, harassment and victimisation while working at F&C. But lawyers for F&C, which has always denied the claims, instead asked the tribunal to consider reviewing its original decision on the basis of new evidence.

Monica Carss-Frisk, QC, for the company, said that the evidence showed Mrs Switalksi to be a “very plausible liar” who is “prepared to mislead her employer and the tribunal”.

Revelations that Mrs Switalksi was “very actively engaged” in seeking employment while claiming to be seriously ill “fundamentally undermine her credibility”, with the result that “much if not all of the evidence [she gave at the original tribunal] must be discounted”, Ms Carrs-Frisk said.

The tribunal chairman must decide whether the new evidence is sufficient for the entire case to be reheard. The chairman can amend the original ruling without ordering a new hearing, although this is rare.

Ms Switalski was accused of manipulating medical experts into supporting her claim that bullying had ruined her career. Ms Carrs-Frisk told the tribunal about an interview that Ms Switalski had attended where the interviewer had later described her as “full of energy and life”. The same day, Ms Carrs-Frisk continued, Ms Switalski visited a psychiatrist who described her as “withdrawn” and in such poor mental health that she should be considered “disabled”. On another occasion, Ms Switalski arranged an early interview in the City so that she could return home in time for a meeting with F&C. That meeting had to take place at her home because she had told F&C that she was too ill to travel.

Ms Switalski, who spent the morning session resting her head on the shoulder of her husband, Andrew, was called as a witness in the afternoon.

Asked if she thought it was inappropriate to claim compensation for not being able to work again when she had already been offered another job, Ms Switalski said: “I wanted to be treated fairly. You don’t think anyone would put themselves through what I have just to get something out of it?”

Ms Switalski’s sister told the tribunal it was impossible that she could have faked her illness and that the suggestion was offensive.

The case continues.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers