Case 6005396/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Wadie 1st v Helios Towers Group LLP 2nd Respondent: Mr PJ Barrett — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005396/2024
- Decision date
- 21 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Wadie 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing by CVP before Employment Judge Nicolle on 14 February 2025 in the joined proceedings under case numbers 6005396/2024, 6006726/2024, 6007242/2024, 6009452/2024, 6014335/2024 and 6014341/2024. The tribunal held that an email of advice dated 28 August 2024 from Pinsent Masons to the respondents, which had been inadvertently forwarded to the claimant by the second respondent, was covered by legal professional privilege. It found that the privilege had not been vitiated by the inequity exception and that the email was not an admissible document.
The tribunal struck out the claims in their entirety under Rule 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, finding that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the claimant immediately requested written reasons, which the tribunal said would be provided as soon as reasonably practicable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type(s) by label. It states that the claims in joined case numbers 6005396/2024, 6006726/2024, 6007242/2024, 6009452/2024, 6014335/2024 and 6014341/2024 were struck out in their entirety under Rule 38(1)(b). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(1)(b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- legal professional privilege
- inequity exception
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.