Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning and Infrastructure

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport

Close

In Kasongo v Humanscale UK Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) recently decided that an employer had to disclose advice received from its external solicitor in relation to the dismissal of an employee because it had disclosed other privileged documents relating to the same issue. The employer was not permitted to ‘cherry-pick’ which parts of the advice it disclosed.

A party in legal proceedings may choose to disclose a document which would otherwise be privileged if it is helpful to their case. However, if privilege is waived over some communications, there is a risk that other connected documents will also have to be disclosed because selectively disclosing privileged material may result in unfairness or misunderstanding. This is also known as a ‘collateral waiver’.

Ms Kasongo was dismissed by Humanscale Ltd after 11 months’ service. She alleged that the reason for her dismissal was that she had recently informed her manager that she was, or might be, pregnant. The company denied knowing that Ms Kasongo was pregnant and claimed that her dismissal was due to concerns over her poor performance and attendance. Ms Kasongo brought claims of maternity and pregnancy discrimination.

Humanscale disclosed three documents to support its case that Ms Kasongo’s dismissal was already underway before she told her manager that she might be pregnant:

  • an attendance note of a telephone call between an HR manager and the company’s external solicitor;
  • an email sent by the HR manager to the company’s in-house lawyer setting out the advice received from the external solicitor; and
  • a draft dismissal letter prepared six days later by the external solicitor, but with the solicitor’s comments redacted.

Ms Kasongo was somehow able to read the redacted words in the third document and wished to rely on them at the hearing. The Employment Tribunal agreed with the company that the redactions were covered by legal advice privilege and had been inadvertently disclosed, so they could not be used as evidence. Ms Kasongo appealed to the EAT, arguing that the company was cherry-picking by disclosing the first two documents, but not the unredacted letter.

The EAT upheld Ms Kasongo’s appeal, ruling that she could rely on the redacted words. Humanscale conceded that it had waived legal advice privilege in relation to the attendance note and the email. However, it argued that the draft dismissal letter was a stand-alone piece of advice, unconnected to those documents, and that the redacted words could therefore remain privileged. The EAT ruled that this distinction was wholly artificial. All three documents were concerned with giving legal advice about Ms Kasongo’s dismissal and were therefore part of the same ‘transaction’. This was not affected by the six-day gap between the documents. Failure to disclose the redacted comments could result in unfairness to Ms Kasongo since the Tribunal would not have a full understanding of the privileged material as a whole.

This decision illustrates that parties must be very careful in any disclosure exercise, even if it appears to be helpful in advancing their case. Disclosing privileged documents may inadvertently result in losing privilege in other communications which would otherwise be protected, if they are clearly connected. This could seriously undermine a party’s case if the related material is less helpful.

Latest articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
20 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JD

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

 

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning and Infrastructure chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Transport chevron

BDB Pitmans is launching Broadfield soon

To read more about our plans, click here.