Former partner Christopher Neill claims unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment
Pogust Goodhead, the international law firm formerly known as PGMBM, is facing an employment tribunal claim from its former partner and chief legal officer, solicitor Christopher Neill.
Mr Neill has brought proceedings alleging unfair dismissal and detriment as a result of whistleblowing. The claim was heard remotely before Employment Judge Clark at an interim relief hearing held on Tuesday.
During the hearing, the firm applied for the proceedings to be held in private, arguing that the alleged protected disclosures contained legally privileged material.
Representing PGMBM Law Ltd, Richard Leiper KC said: “This is not a situation in which disclosures have been made which could be publicly reported, but it is something else which involves a bit of privileged information. The material now being relied on as protected disclosures are privileged information. The protected disclosures and alleged privileged information is one and the same, that is why there is no way of disentangling the hearing.”
He added: “It is with great reluctance that anyone makes a submission a hearing has to be in private. This is the position we are forced into in the circumstances and manner of the claimant’s claim.”
Embed from Getty Images
Appearing for Mr Neill, Dijen Basu KC said both parties agreed that the hearing should take place in private and that it was “not possible to ventilate” the dispute over privilege in a public hearing.
Mr Basu told the tribunal that the issues raised in Mr Neill’s interim relief application and overall claim “do touch very closely” on matters in the ongoing Pan NOx litigation, a large group action which Pogust Goodhead is co-leading.
He added: “Over time less of that will be confidential, that will come out in the court hearings of the Pan NOx litigation.”
In her oral judgment, Employment Judge Clark said: “[In this case] legal professional privilege is intrinsically linked with the alleged protected disclosures which the claimant says he made and on which he relies. It is the central part of his claim.”
She continued: “It seems to the tribunal it would be impossible to make determinations about the likely success of the claimant establishing he made protected disclosures without referring to evidence which is arguably legally privileged.”
Judge Clark ruled that the most appropriate way to proceed was to address the question of admissibility surrounding privilege before holding the interim relief hearing.
“The best way this can be achieved, balancing the right of parties and the public interest in open justice and without offending the interest of open justice, is addressing the question of admissibility around the question of privilege around the claimant’s protected disclosures, with the interim relief hearing taking place shortly after that,” she said.
The judge acknowledged that the delay to the interim relief hearing would “impact both parties… particularly the claimant who is without income,” but found that “the delay is not an inordinate delay.”
She added: “I appreciate the interim relief hearing should only be postponed in special circumstances, but the tribunal considers preserving the possibility that the interim relief hearing could be conducted in public would amount to such a special circumstance.”
A private hearing on the alleged whistleblowing and privileged material will take place early next year, followed by a potentially public interim hearing once the privilege issues have been resolved.