ARTICLE
19 August 2025

Correspondence With Legal Adviser Could Not Be Relied Upon By Claimant Under Iniquity Exception

d
didlaw

Contributor

Not just another law firm, the emphasis at didlaw has always been about providing an exceptional level of client service. This means clear and practical advice, explained in plain English. It means going the extra mile for our clients to find the right solution.

We started in 2008, focusing on helping people who were having difficulties around health and disability at work. By 2018, we were widely recognised as the UK’s leading disability discrimination lawyers.

In 2019 didlaw began a new chapter in its story. Our MD, Karen Jackson joined forces with employment barrister, Elizabeth George, to embark on the next ambitious phase of the firm’s journey.

The two women have expanded the firm’s offering to provide the same level of expertise but across all areas of employment and discrimination law. And they are committed to making didlaw a truly values-driven firm in everything that it does. You can read more about the values that drive them on our website.

The appellant in the case of Shawcross v SMG Europe Holdings Ltd & Ors was dismissed on 28 April 2023. Two days before her dismissal she was inadvertently copied into email correspondence...
United Kingdom Employment and HR

The appellant in the case of Shawcross v SMG Europe Holdings Ltd & Ors was dismissed on 28 April 2023. Two days before her dismissal she was inadvertently copied into email correspondence between SMG Europe and their legal representative. There were seven emails in the chain which Ms Shawcross sought to rely on to support a claim of victimisation. SMG's position was that she was not entitled to rely on the emails because they were subject to legal professional privilege in the usual way that communications between a lawyer and their client are. Ms Shawcross took the position that the emails fell within the iniquity exception: that they were not privileged because they evidenced a discussion about fabricating a reason for the dismissal and the identity of the decision maker.

The Employment Judge at first instance concluded that the claimant had not established that the emails were subject to the iniquity exception. The claimant was therefore not permitted to rely on them in evidence at the full hearing of her complaints.

Ms Shawcross appealed.

The EAT upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal Judge. There had been no error of law. Objectively when read as a whole the emails did not amount to a discussion about fabricating a false position. There was no evidence of any underhand or iniquitous conduct. Even if all the parties considered that there was an overwhelming likelihood that the appellant would be dismissed the appellant had not met the threshold to establish the iniquity exception.

The advice in the emails given by the company's solicitor was the routine sort of advice that employment lawyers regularly give to their client and fell within the scope of professional engagement. Privilege therefore applied to the advice.

The appeal was refused. Ms Shawcross will not be able to use the email chain in evidence in the full merits hearing of her claim.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More