Moving Brands Limited & Ors v Matheus Heinl & Anor

Moving Brands Limited & Ors v Matheus Heinl & Anor

The Tribunal did not err in its application of the law on agency and privilege, nor in its procedural approach to evidence. However, it erred by failing to provide for documents tending to reveal privileged communications and by omitting legal advice privilege as a ground for withholding documents post-17 February 2021. The Tribunal was not required to consider relevance where it was not raised and was assumed.

Parties
Respondent/appellant: Moving Brands Limited; Respondent/appellant: Year 15 Limited; Respondent/appellant: Mr Ben Wolstenholme; Respondent/appellant: Mr Guy Wolstenholme; Respondent/appellant: Mr John Toppin; Respondent/appellant: Ms Christina-Anne Kyosti; Claimant/respondent: Mr Matheus Heinl; Claimant/respondent: Ms Hanna Laikko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Order for Specific Disclosure
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Specific Disclosure, Unfair Dismissal, Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures
Employment Law Civil Procedure Legal Professional Privilege Specific Disclosure Unfair Dismissal Whistleblowing Protected Disclosures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moving Brands Limited

Respondent/appellant

Year 15 Limited

Respondent/appellant

Mr Ben Wolstenholme

Respondent/appellant

Mr Guy Wolstenholme

Respondent/appellant

Mr John Toppin

Respondent/appellant

Ms Christina-Anne Kyosti

Respondent/appellant

Mr Matheus Heinl

Claimant/respondent

Ms Hanna Laikko

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Order for Specific Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its approach to legal advice privilege and litigation privilege in the context of specific disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to provide for documents tending to reveal privileged communications
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to allow for legal advice privilege post-17 February 2021

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in its application of the law on agency and privilege, nor in its procedural approach to evidence. However, it erred by failing to provide for documents tending to reveal privileged communications and by omitting legal advice privilege as a ground for withholding documents post-17 February 2021. The Tribunal was not required to consider relevance where it was not raised and was assumed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The case management order is to be varied to provide for documents tending to reveal the content of privileged legal advice to be withheld and to allow for legal advice privilege to be claimed for documents post-17 February 2021.