Claimant v Helios Towers Group LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
All claims struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) on the basis that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the Claimant has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. The tribunal also determined that an email of legal advice inadvertently forwarded to the claimant remained subject to legal professional privilege.
Facts
The Claimant brought six separate claims against Helios Towers Group LLP and Mr PJ Barrett. The 2nd Respondent inadvertently forwarded to the Claimant a privileged email of legal advice dated 28 August 2024 from the Respondents' solicitors, Pinsent Masons. The Respondents sought a determination that the email remained privileged. A preliminary hearing was convened to address this issue and the conduct of proceedings.
Decision
The tribunal ruled that the inadvertently disclosed email remained covered by legal professional privilege and the inequity exception did not apply. The tribunal struck out all six claims in their entirety under Rule 38(1)(b) on the basis that the manner in which the Claimant conducted the proceedings was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious.
Practical note
Even where privileged documents are inadvertently disclosed, legal professional privilege is not automatically waived, and tribunals have power to strike out claims where a litigant in person's conduct of proceedings is scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6005396/2024
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No