AB v Albemarle Club Limited — 2020

The respondent applied to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(b), arguing that without prejudice correspondence and a draft crowdfunding statement showed blackmail, defamation-related threats, unreasonable conduct, and that a fair trial was no longer possible. The underlying claim, as described in the judgment, was a claim that the claimant had worker status as a hostess at the club and had suffered a detriment contrary to section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on grounds of trade union membership or activities.

The tribunal held that the without prejudice material remained privileged and there was no basis to lift that privilege. Referring to Curless v Shell International Limited and the principle of open justice, the judge said there was no convention-right reason to depart from public hearing principles. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant’s representative had engaged in unambiguous impropriety.

On the respondent’s alternative case, the judge found that the proposed amendment to the claim did no more than add detail to the pleaded case. The judgment records pleaded references to a member paying £500 to spend the night and to a bottle of champagne for at least £300, and found that the amendment was consistent with the original particulars. The judge also rejected the contention that the claimant had misrepresented the anonymity order, and concluded that there was no basis to say a fair trial was no longer possible. The strike-out application therefore failed and the substantive claim remained on foot.