Faithorn Farrell Timms Plc v Bailey – protected conversation privilege cannot be waived | Redmans Solicitors

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

redmans-blog-analysisIn the case of Faithorn Farrell Timms Plc v Bailey UKEAT/0025/16/RN the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that the parties to litigation had waived without prejudice privilege (which would otherwise have applied) and that the correspondence which was otherwise subject to that without prejudice protection was admissible; however, the EAT held that but that the parties could not waive privilege that applied to communications by virtue of section 111A Employment Rights Act 1996 (also known generally as “protected conversations”).

Ms Bailey worked as a secretary for Faithorn Farrell Timms plc (“Faithorn”), a surveyor’s firm. She worked at the organisation from 16 March 2009 to the date of her resignation on 26 February 2015. She initially worked on a part-time basis as an office secretary but she was told in December 2014 that working part-time was no longer an option. She therefore initiated discussions regarding a settlement agreement. By 7 January 2015 the parties were engaged in a dispute and Ms Bailey was alleging that she was being treated unreasonably (sufficiently so, she said, to trigger her resignation and a constructive dismissal claim) and that she was being discriminated against on the grounds of her sex.

Between January 2015 and May 2015 Ms Bailey and Faithorn engaged in correspondence regarding Ms Bailey’s threatened claims and settlement terms, variously on their own behalves and through their solicitors. Various pieces of correspondence were sent by both parties headed “without prejudice” but some were not. In producing an outcome to Ms Bailey’s grievance Faithorn relied on various pieces of correspondence between the parties, both headed “without prejudice” and not.

Ms Bailey resigned on 26 February 2015 and submitted claims for constructive dismissal and direct sex discrimination on 6 May 2015. In her claim she referred to initiating settlement agreement discussions on 10 December 2014 and referenced correspondence between the parties as evidencing bullying and discrimination.

Faithorn, in its response to Ms Bailey’s claims, did not assert privilege (whether common law or statutory) but responded to (and indeed relied on) the factual points that Ms Bailey had detailed in her claim, including the existence and details of settlement discussions.

During the Employment Tribunal proceedings, an issue arose as to the admissibility of various party to party correspondence and the Employment Tribunal undertook a preliminary hearing to rule on this issue. The Employment Tribunal held that the documents in issue were neither rendered admissible by virtue of section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 (as a “protected conversation”) nor by the common law without prejudice privilege as the parties had waived privilege. Both parties appealed.

The EAT held that there had been no error of law with regards to the Employment Judge’s conclusion that both parties had expressly waived privilege by relying on otherwise-without prejudice documents in both the grievance process (both in Ms Bailey’s submissions and Faithorn’s outcome) and in pleadings (both Ms Bailey and Faithorn referred to the fact and content of nominally without prejudice documents in, respectively, their claim and response). The EAT did, however, state that the parties could not have waived privilege with regards to communications that fell under the ambit of section 111A ERA 1996 as it was not possible under the wording of the statute to waive privilege; further, the EAT held that communications which fell under the ambit of section 111A ERA 1996 were privileged in respect of both their existence and contents, and that such information was therefore inadmissible.

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on this case: “This is the first appeal judgment of the nature of the application of section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and clarifies the law relating to communications under this section. This judgment also stands as a useful reminder to parties that they should be careful about the labeling of communications as ‘without prejudice’ or not, and that they should be equally careful not to unintentionally waive privilege.”

The judgment of the EAT can be found here.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk.

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.59 Average

17 Reviews

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 3 weeks ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 3 weeks ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 3 weeks ago

Keith

Quick fast professional service.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Michael

"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

"Excellent service, getting back to you promptly giving you very good advice."

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I found Chris Hadrill to be an excellent help, he is very knowledgeable and gives good ,concise ,strategic advice .He makes himself readily accessible when you need him.I would personally highly recommend him.

Posted 1 month ago

Christine

Professional, efficient and reliable service provided. I strongly recommend them and I would use this service again.

Posted 1 month ago