Simpkin v The Berkeley Group Holdings Plc [2017] EWHC 1472 (QB) (22 June 2017)

Simpkin v The Berkeley Group Holdings Plc [2017] EWHC 1472 (QB) (22 June 2017)

The 'Synopsis' document was not confidential or privileged as against the defendant due to the claimant's use of the defendant's IT systems, lack of reasonable expectation of privacy, and company policies. The defendant's partial disclosure of legal advice in committee minutes constituted a waiver of privilege over the entire transaction, requiring full disclosure. References to whistleblowing in the claimant's witness statement were to be limited, and the defendant could not rely on certain responsive witness statements. Privilege in one email was waived by deploying its contents; privilege in another was not waived.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1472
Parties
Claimant: Nicolas Guy Simpkin; Defendant: The Berkeley Group Holdings PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2017
Procedural Posture
High Court (queen's Bench Division) Civil / Interlocutory Applications Prior to Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Applications determined in part for claimant and in part for defendant; orders made accordingly.
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Litigation Privilege, Waiver of Privilege, Disclosure and Inspection of Documents, Employment Termination, Bonus and Incentive Schemes, Whistleblowing, Confidentiality
Employment Law Civil Procedure Evidence Legal Professional Privilege Litigation Privilege Waiver of Privilege Disclosure and Inspection of Documents Employment Termination +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicolas Guy Simpkin

Claimant

The Berkeley Group Holdings PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court (queen's Bench Division) Civil / Interlocutory Applications Prior to Trial of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether references to whistleblowing in claimant's witness statement should be struck out and whether defendant can rely on responsive witness statements
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's 'Synopsis' document is privileged and confidential as against the defendant and whether its use can be restrained
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to inspection of certain emails claimed as privileged

Ratio Decidendi

The 'Synopsis' document was not confidential or privileged as against the defendant due to the claimant's use of the defendant's IT systems, lack of reasonable expectation of privacy, and company policies. The defendant's partial disclosure of legal advice in committee minutes constituted a waiver of privilege over the entire transaction, requiring full disclosure. References to whistleblowing in the claimant's witness statement were to be limited, and the defendant could not rely on certain responsive witness statements. Privilege in one email was waived by deploying its contents; privilege in another was not waived.

Court Disposition

Applications determined in part for claimant and in part for defendant; orders made accordingly.

Orders

  • Strike out all but the first sentence of paragraphs 135-137 of claimant's first witness statement unless voluntarily removed by claimant.
  • Defendant not entitled to rely on second statements of Sir John Armitt and Mr Barker regarding whistleblowing.