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 and lack of reasonable expectation of privacy; thus, no injunction restraining its use was warranted. 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 statement were to be limited, and the defendant could not rely on responsive witness statements from non-participants in the relevant conversation.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1472 (QB)
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 as follows: claimant's application to restrain use of the 'Synopsis' refused; defendant's claim to privilege in committee minutes rejected; directions given regarding witness statements on whistleblowing.
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Litigation Privilege, Waiver of Privilege, Disclosure and Inspection of Documents, Employment Termination, Bonus and Incentive Schemes, Whistleblowing, Equitable Remedies
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 28 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 to be 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 and lack of reasonable expectation of privacy; thus, no injunction restraining its use was warranted. 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 statement were to be limited, and the defendant could not rely on responsive witness statements from non-participants in the relevant conversation.

Court Disposition

Applications determined as follows: claimant's application to restrain use of the 'Synopsis' refused; defendant's claim to privilege in committee minutes rejected; directions given regarding witness statements on whistleblowing.

Orders

  • Striking out of all but the first sentence of paragraph 135, and paragraphs 136 and 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.