Case 3329259/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Campbell v Orchid Field Marketing Limited; and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3329259/2017
- Decision date
- 15 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms L Campbell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Bury St Edmunds on 19 February 2019, Employment Judge Cassel, sitting alone, dealt with admissibility issues in a case where Ms L Campbell had brought unfair dismissal and Equality Act claims against Orchid Field Marketing Limited and others. The judgment did not determine the merits of those claims. It recorded that the final hearing remained listed for 26 April 2019 to 7 May 2019 and that the immediate issue was whether an email dated 14 November 2017 could be admitted in evidence.
The judge accepted that paragraph (a) of the email was ordinary legal advice and remained privileged. In relation to paragraph (b), he considered the wording that proposed an appeal be managed so that a further complaint about David Skinner's direct management style would strengthen the respondent's case on the discrimination allegation and lead to the conclusion that there was no discrimination case to answer. Applying the iniquity exception to legal advice privilege, and referring to X v Y Ltd and Barclays Bank Plc v Eustice, the judge found a strong prima facie case of iniquity and held that paragraph (b) was admissible in evidence. The email had been sent to the claimant in error and withdrawn within two hours.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim; it decided admissibility of part of an email under legal advice privilege. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | This preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of the Equality Act claim; the claimant had alleged sex discrimination and victimisation, and the judge ruled on admissibility of part of an email relevant to that dispute. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- legal advice privilege
- iniquity exception
- strong prima facie case of iniquity
- X v Y Ltd
- Barclays Bank Plc v Eustice
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.