Piepenbrock v The London School of Economics And Political Science

The claimant brings this claim for damages for psychiatric injury arising from his employment as a Teaching Fellow at the defendant’s Department of Management between September 2011 and September 2014. The claimant was appointed as an LSE Fellow to run the “capstone” course, strategy, organisation and innovation in the department’s postgraduate programme the Master’s in Management (MiM). On 1 September 2012 he was appointed to the role of Deputy Academic Dean in the new Executive Global Master’s in Management (GMiM) programme. At all relevant times Miss D was employed by the defendant as the claimant’s graduate teaching assistant (GTA), a post she held from September to 30 November 2012.

The claim is based upon three causes of action:

The defendant’s vicarious liability for the actions of Miss D who harassed the claimant within the meaning of that term in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the 1997 Act), by making numerous false and malicious allegations against the claimant to staff and students at the London School of Economics (LSE) and to bodies associated with the claimant;

The defendant’s Harassment Policy was incorporated into the claimant’s contract, the defendant failed to follow the contractual procedure;

The defendant’s handling of Miss D’s complaint was negligent.

Miss D was originally one of the students on the MiM course taught by the claimant. Following the successful completion of the course she was employed by the defendant as the claimant’s GTA. It is now apparent that she had become infatuated with the claimant. This was observed by other staff including Professor Saul Estrin, the co-head of the department, who referred to her as showing “dog-like devotion”. In November 2012 Miss D accompanied the claimant on a trip to Boston and Seattle where he was to give lectures and attend LSE alumni events. In Boston she made an overt sexual advance, greeting the claimant in a state of partial undress when she opened her hotel door. He rejected her advance. In Boston and Seattle the claimant tried and failed to restore a professional relationship. As a result he told Miss D that she would have to cease working for him.

Following the trip Miss D, who is American, remained in the United States, the claimant returned to the LSE. Thereafter Miss D made a series of malicious and untruthful complaints to the LSE, she circulated allegations of the claimant’s alleged sexual impropriety to members of the faculty, an unknown number of the claimant’s former students, Duke University and The Economist. On 11 December 2012 Miss D instigated a formal complaint procedure against the claimant of which he was informed by the defendant on 12 December 2012. By midnight on 12 December the claimant felt unable to continue to teach, he became ill and was seen by his general practitioner on 18 December 2012 who diagnosed an acute stress reaction. The claimant never returned to work at the LSE. The LSE found Miss D’s claim not proven, a process in which the claimant had not taken part by reason of his ill-health. It is the claimant’s case that the defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of Miss D. The defendant is also in breach of contract and in breach of its duty to take reasonable care of the claimant in its handling of Miss D’s complaint. As a result the claimant suffered a severe depressive episode, which renders him vulnerable to further episodes of depression.

The defendant denies that it is vicariously liable for the actions of Miss D, it denies the allegations of negligence and breach of contract and contends that its handling of the complaint against the claimant was reasonable in the circumstances as they prevailed. It denies that the injuries sustained by the claimant were foreseeable and in any event he suffered an adjustment disorder not a depressive illness.

The claimant, aged 52, is married to Professor Sophie Marnette-Piepenbrock, they have a 15-year-old son. He is a citizen of the Netherlands and the United States and has worked in the UK for more than 20 years. Following a successful career as an architectural/structural engineer he switched careers to become a business school academic, obtaining his MBA, MSc and PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In his doctorate “Towards a theory of the evolution of business ecosystems” the claimant sought to explain the rise and fall of business leaders, their organisations, the industries in which they operate, and the national economies in which they are embedded.

When working on his PhD the claimant established a “global network” of academics and business executives who shared and supported the ideas he was advancing in his PhD research, the International Institute for Strategic Leadership (IISL). Following completion of his doctorate in July 2009 the claimant was offered a one-year post-doctoral associate position at MIT by one of his supervisors, Professor Charles Fine. The claimant states that unknown to him Professor Fine gave lectures and interviews in which he presented the claimant’s PhD research as his own. A plagiarised article appeared in the academic journal MIT Sloan Management Review and in the business journal Forbes in early 2010. The claimant was shocked, he confronted Professor Fine who allegedly retaliated by cancelling the PhD course which the claimant was scheduled to teach. It is the claimant’s case that he was forced to defend himself and his work in the first half of 2010, as a result he suffered a depressive episode. The claimant states that his depressive episode ended when apologies and admissions of guilt were publicly issued by MIT with corrections made in the journals.

On 1 July 2011 the claimant applied to the LSE’s Department of Management (DoM) for an appointment as a Fellow in the area of general management. He was interviewed by the DoM co-heads, Professor Estrin and Professor Bevan. The conversation turned to his lack of academic publications. The claimant explained that he had been hired at MIT as a post-doctoral Fellow to teach a PhD course, his PhD dissertation supervisor/line manager plagiarised his doctoral research and expropriated his ideas. When the claimant objected to the unethical behaviour Professor Fine cancelled his teaching at MIT. He said that Professor Fine’s behaviour had caused a depressive illness which prevented him from working/writing for the remainder of his contract. The claimant was pleasantly surprised that neither Professors Estrin nor Bevan appeared to be concerned about the disclosure of his previous mental health problems nor his lack of publishing. Prior to joining LSE he was not required to attend a medical nor did he recall having to provide anything further about his medical history.

On 3 August 2011 Professor Estrin offered the claimant the position of LSE Fellow. Between January and March 2012 the claimant taught over 100 students. His teaching was generally well received by students and faculty colleagues, he achieved very high assessment marks, his students performed exceptionally well, he was awarded an LSE teaching prize.

A student in the LSE’s two-year Master’s in Management (MiM) programme from 2010 to 2012 was Miss D. The claimant taught her in the capstone course, she was intelligent, hard-working and graduated from the MiM programme with a distinction. Following the capstone course the claimant supervised approximately 30 MiM dissertations. In the summer of 2012 Miss D asked the claimant to supervise her master’s dissertation as she was interested in contributing to and advancing his “evolution of business ecosystems” (EBE) research agenda. He refused as he had too many students to supervise. Miss D persisted and did a piece of unsupervised research which was impressive. As a result the claimant agreed to be her supervisor.

Miss D subsequently changed her topic twice, she asked to meet the claimant many times. He began to suspect she was using it as an excuse to be with him, he noticed a subtle change in her behaviour towards him. Miss D had always been complimentary about his work but he felt her attention had moved to a more personal level. As a result he spoke to his wife. The claimant then told Miss D that he could no longer supervise her dissertation, he would find another faculty member to do so. She broke down in tears, she explained this was at the thought of losing the opportunity to work with him. She told the claimant personal details relating to her father. He attempted and failed to find a replacement so agreed to remain her supervisor. Miss D completed her dissertation. Having done so she asked if she could become one of the claimant’s PhD students, he declined as he had too much work.

The claimant was also teaching an executive version of the MiM programme, the Executive Global Master’s in Management (GMiM). On 12 July 2012 Professor Estrin sought permission for the claimant’s appointment to teach on this course and to deputise for the Academic Dean. This was granted. The claimant’s contract was renewed for a further 24 months. The first module of the GMiM cohort was taught in September 2012, the second module was due to be taught on 13 December 2012.

On 20 August 2012 the claimant met with Professors Estrin and Bevan to discuss a promotion and permanent contract. As a result of advice from colleagues to the effect that if Professor Estrin promised anything the claimant was to get it in writing, he secretly recorded the conversation at that meeting. Professor Estrin was anticipating change in the department and indicated to the claimant that in order to secure his position they had in mind the Professor of Practice appointment. No formal offer was made to the claimant at the meeting. In November 2012 the claimant was asked by the director of MiM to become Director of Studies for the MiM programme in August 2013, he agreed.

The claimant was invited to give lectures on his research at international LSE alumni events. The claimant used these talks to promote and encourage students onto the MiM course. He travelled and interacted with business leaders to establish research links. The LSE alumni trips overlapped with meeting up with IISL fellows.

As a result of the additional workload, the GMiM course and Deanship, the claimant was permitted a graduate teaching assistant (GTA). He wanted a GTA from his MiM cohort to ensure familiarity with his research methods and materials. There were initially three then two potential candidates, Miss D was selected. The claimant stated that in appointing Miss D “I did not consider that her past behaviour would be a problem. As far as I was concerned we had talked and Miss D was aware and accepting of the fact that our relationship was strictly of a professional nature.” Miss D was appointed on a three-month fixed-term appointment from September to November 2012. She was hard working and productive. He invited her to become a member of IISL.

Shortly after her appointment the claimant noticed that Miss D was again paying him personal attention. She began to flirt with him, this made him uncomfortable and he let her know. Wearing a miniskirt Miss D sometimes revealed her undergarments when she crossed her legs or when she insisted on crawling on her hands and knees to plug in her laptop power cord. The claimant would ask her to stop and would offer his power cord. He discussed it with his wife. They decided to show how happily married he was and invited Miss D to join them and their son in going to a movie and for a meal. During the evening Miss D spent most of her time talking to the claimant, albeit she did strike up a relationship with the claimant’s wife and son. Emails were exchanged between Miss D and the claimant’s son relating to football and an invitation to a Thanksgiving dinner.

Miss D continued her flirtatious behaviour. On 6 November 2012 the claimant confronted her in “the most sensitive way I could, given the awkwardness of the circumstances”. He said that he greatly valued Miss D as a work colleague but she made him feel as if she wanted something more out of their working relationship than he was able to give as he was a happily married husband and father and twice her age. She broke down in tears and spoke of her allegedly abusive father.

In November 2012 the claimant was invited to Boston to deliver lectures at MIT and to be a guest at the LSE’s alumni event. He was also invited to Seattle to hold a research seminar at the Virginia Mason Medical Centre (VMMC) and to be a guest at the LSE’s alumni event. The claimant’s primary purpose was stated to be to showcase LSE’s research, develop new research contracts for LSE and strengthen LSE’s alumni networks in the US. MIT paid for the claimant’s airfare to Boston and his hotel accommodation there. VMMC paid for his airfare to Seattle and his hotel accommodation.

Miss D had coordinated the claimant’s meeting with the LSE alumni groups in Boston and Seattle, she had liaised with two IISL fellows, Mike Wargel and Rasheed El-Moslimany to coordinate research meetings in Seattle. Miss D approached the claimant with the idea of joining him on the trip, to help him to be more productive. The claimant thought this a good idea. Miss D wanted to explore the possibility of doing a PhD at MIT and/or find employment at VMMC. To limit the cost Miss D offered to stay with her mother in New York and with Mike Wargel in Seattle. The claimant and Miss D were owed monies as a result of a course which had been designed and delivered by them to Koç, a Turkish university. The claimant asked for payment from the LSE administrator which he used to pay for Miss D’s travel costs to the US.

Prior to leaving London Miss D sent an email to the claimant stating that she had decided not to visit her sick mother in New York. As a result he offered her the suite at the hotel booked for him, he secured a room on another floor for himself. They arrived on Sunday 11 November 2012. The next morning the claimant rang Miss D to arrange a meeting. He suggested they met and worked in the hotel lobby, she suggested they worked in the office area of the suite and he agreed. The claimant asked if she was dressed and ready to go, she said yes. He knocked on the door of the suite, when Miss D opened the door she was wearing a sweater top which did not cover what he described as “her private parts”. In his evidence the claimant said he looked down briefly and could see black, either her underwear or her pubic hair. He told her to finish getting dressed which she did.

The claimant rang his wife to tell her what had happened and to discuss what to do about Miss D’s behaviour. They agreed that it would be best for him to sensitively discuss it with her and point out why it was inappropriate. Between 1 and 2pm the claimant spoke with Miss D in a Boston park. He sensitively tried to discuss Miss D’s behaviour but she was rather elusive. Between 6:30 and 8:30pm he had another conversation with Miss D in the same park. The claimant wanted to confront Miss D about her inappropriate behaviour to ensure it would not happen again. This time he was more direct, his tone was firmer. Miss D continued to be elusive. When the claimant told her that other people also felt that her behaviour was inappropriate she became upset and wanted to know who they were. She spoke about her allegedly abusive father saying that he made her feel dumb and ugly. The claimant responded by saying she was neither dumb nor ugly but said that if she could not behave professionally and communicate in a constructive way to resolve the issue he would no longer be able to work with her. He told her she could not attend his MIT lecture the next day. She did not respond and remained elusive.

The following morning Miss D had a text conversation via Skype with one of her colleagues from the MiM programme. It included the following:

The same morning the claimant rang Miss D and said that if she behaved professionally and respectfully she could accompany him to MIT, she agreed. Following the lecture the claimant attempted to have a further discussion with Miss D about her behaviour but she refused to engage in constructive conversation.

When the claimant was in his hotel he received a “surprising and bizarre” telephone call from Miss D’s mother in New York. She pleaded with him not to leave her daughter, meaning he had terminated his relationship with her. The claimant was dumbfounded. He said that his wife and son had enjoyed meeting her daughter, he did not think that Miss D was telling her mother the truth about the situation, her mother said her daughter was one of the most truthful people who had ever lived, she had never known her to tell a single lie.

The next day, 14 November, Miss D attended the claimant’s second lecture at MIT, she remained petulant and refused to engage in a conversation with the claimant about her behaviour. That evening Miss D and the claimant flew to Seattle. A presentation by the claimant to senior executives at VMMC was due to take place on Friday 16 November.

They arrived at about 11:20pm, Mike Wargel collected them from the airport and took them to the hotel. A suite had been reserved for the claimant. The claimant asked Mike Wargel and Miss D if they were willing to have a meeting, a “check in” to discuss the next day’s IILS summit and subsequent executive education sessions at VMMC. The meeting took place in the suite and began at about 12:30am. During the meeting Mike and the claimant tried to engage Miss D in conversation about how professional and respectful colleagues treat each other but she was petulant and elusive.

Within one hour of the meeting the claimant states that he could not take any more of Miss D’s unprofessional and petulant behaviour in the meetings with VMMC. She was not prepared to apologise, face up to her inappropriate behaviour and assure him that it would not be repeated. He told her that he had to end their working relationship. Miss D was concerned about the impact this would have on her reputation. Mr Wargel had left the room to book a room for Miss D in the hotel. The claimant said that he did not want to cause her any further embarrassment or humiliation so he would not raise it at the LSE unless he was forced to do so. He was willing to allow her to finish her contract at the end of November but he would no longer stand for her unprofessionalism and mediocrity. Upon hearing this Miss D became hysterical, ran after him in tears pleading “Don’t go, please don’t let this end, please let’s bring Mike back in”. She tried to follow the claimant out of the room but he pulled the door shut to prevent her from following him. Through the door she shouted “I will make you regret this decision for the rest of your life, I will ruin your life and your career”.

Between 2 and 2:15am the claimant left the room to discuss the situation with Mike Wargel who was waiting in the room booked for Miss D. He asked Mike to go back and see if she was alright. He emailed his wife to keep her informed. Mike returned and said Miss D was distraught, he had been unable to placate her. Mike thought they should both go back and try to calm her, which they did at about 3:05am. The claimant explained that even though he would not be able to work with Miss D he would not say anything about what had happened as he did not want her reputation to be harmed at the LSE and beyond. She was welcome to finish her GTA contract but if she tried to ruin the claimant as she had threatened he would defend himself. Miss D had calmed down, she said she just wanted to disappear.

At about 4am the telephone rang, it was Miss D’s mother calling from New York. The claimant and Mike Wargel left the room to give her some privacy. They were waiting outside the room when two security guards arrived and said they had been informed that the claimant and Mike were preventing Miss D from leaving the hotel and they had to escort her out. The claimant and Mike were dumbfounded. The claimant explained that Miss D was an employee of the LSE, she had had a difficult week and had become very distraught, he and Mike were trying to help. At about 4:20am the security guards entered the room, Miss D was Skyping with her mother. She told the guards that she and the claimant had had a disagreement about the nature of their relationship, she was trying to leave but the claimant and Mike would not allow her to do so. She asked to be escorted to a taxi which was done. Miss D was going to fly home to her mother. The claimant states when Miss D was in the lift with the security guard she mouthed the words “call me” to the claimant. He said he was dumbfounded at her behaviour.

On 16 November Professor Bevan emailed the claimant stating that the LSE had been informed that a situation had occurred whilst he was in Seattle. The claimant replied stating:

On 19 November the claimant returned to the LSE and met with Professor Bevan. The meeting was informal. Professor Bevan did not tell the claimant what Miss D was alleging against him or show him her complaint. He asked the claimant what had happened. The claimant summarised what had occurred, he avoided going into personal details which would embarrass Miss D. If required to he could reveal details of her harassing behaviour but Professor Bevan did not ask for them. He said that Miss D had behaved so inappropriately that he considered that he could no longer work with her as his GTA. He had informed Miss D of this, she understood. He told Miss D that while she was welcome to complete her employment to the end of her contract the claimant would not work with her. Miss D threatened to ruin his life and career in retaliation for his terminating their working relationship. He gave Professor Bevan two documents: an email which Miss D sent to the claimant on 6 November illustrating her emotional instabilities and an email from Mr Wargel after the event in Seattle. The claimant asked Professor Bevan to begin his investigation by contacting Mr Wargel to obtain his evidence. Professor Bevan appeared sympathetic and shared a story of a complaint against himself.

Following his return the claimant began to notice that colleagues and students avoided or ignored him, one female colleague refused to ride in the same lift. He felt as if they had prejudged him as guilty of something serious of which he was unaware and were punishing him publicly. On 23 November Professor Bevan emailed the claimant suggesting that Miss D had been left off an email sent to other MiM students seeking support for a teaching award for the claimant. The claimant responded saying he had no knowledge of the matter. In the same email Professor Bevan stated:

The removal of a teaching assistant left the claimant with no help with his workload for the MiM and the GMiM programmes. HR had advised that a GTA could not come from the MiM cohort who knew Miss D. The claimant explained to Professor Bevan that it was essential for him to hire a GTA who was familiar with the MiM course. On 24 November the claimant flew to India to teach at the LSE alumni events.

Following the claimant’s return from India in the early part of December he saw Professor Estrin at a meeting, the Professor ignored him. By this time the claimant was concerned that Miss D had made allegations which were unknown to him and he was being prejudged by colleagues and students.

On 12 December Professor Bevan requested an urgent meeting with the claimant which took place on that day. Professor Bevan said there was no need to contact Mike Wargel as he did not believe there would be a formal grievance. He said the claimant could not have a GTA and he was not permitted to go to the MiM graduation on 19 December 2012 because Miss D’s parents would be there. The claimant said the defendant’s actions were adding credibility to Miss D’s false allegations and he would not be able to teach properly without a GTA.

Following the meeting the claimant emailed Professor Bevan and asked him to reconsider allowing him to attend the graduation. He later had a conversation with a faculty colleague, Dr Emma Soane, about Miss D. Dr Soane told the claimant that Miss D had sent emails to the faculty about him but she refused to show them. He asked what the allegations were, had he been accused of rape or battery, she said she could not discuss it with him as she had been told to keep it confidential. He then spoke to a further two colleagues who confirmed that they had seen an email from Miss D but refused to discuss the content. Those conversations confirmed what the claimant had grown to suspect, namely that he was being maliciously defamed behind his back, that the defendant had prejudged him as being guilty and was punishing him publicly prior to any investigations and prior to informing him of any of the allegations. It confirmed that rumours had been spreading throughout the faculty amongst staff and students. This was deeply distressing for the claimant and undermined his trust and confidence in the defendant.

At 2:11pm the claimant received an email from Daniel Linehan informing him that Miss D had submitted a complaint in the approved format alleging harassment by him in November 2012. No detail of the complaint was given.

The claimant continued to work but eventually went home that evening exhausted, anxious and feeling let down by the defendant. He was scheduled to teach the next day to a major module of GMiM students. He had no GTA, he knew that these students were friends with the previous year’s cohort and realised they would probably have gossiped about Miss D’s complaint. By reason of the lack of support by the defendant they were likely to believe that he was some kind of sexual predator. He attempted to prepare for the module that evening and failed. He discussed the situation with his wife. At midnight he sent an email to Professors Estrin and Bevan stating:

The claimant felt he could no longer function. The next day he remained at home unable to teach. Professor Estrin emailed the claimant asking to discuss his teaching the following day. On 14 December his wife replied to Professor Estrin saying that he was very unwell and unable to meet. An appointment was made for him to see his doctor. On 17 December Professor Estrin directly emailed the claimant to ask when he was coming back to work, in that email Professor Estrin said he was “…well aware of how upsetting these disciplinary procedures are.” The reference to disciplinary action added to the claimant’s loss of confidence and distress.

On 18 December the claimant attended his GP, he was diagnosed with depression and given medication. On 19 December 2012 it was announced that Dr Sandy Pepper was to become the first Professor of Practice in the DoM. It was the claimant’s case that by reason of the harassment of Miss D and the breaches of duty by the defendant he lost a good chance to attain this position which added to his distress. In his evidence-in-chief the claimant stated that from December 2012 he was ill in bed, his wife was dealing with emails on his behalf.

On 8 January 2013 the claimant was signed off work until the end of January due to an “acute stress reaction”. Following a written request by the claimant’s wife on 9 January, on 10 January Daniel Linehan emailed the claimant a redacted copy of Miss D’s complaints with two attachments. He stated that the claimant could not attend the proposed meeting in the company of his wife but only with a colleague from within the LSE or a member of a trade union. This was not factually correct and added to the claimant’s distress. On 31 January the claimant was signed off work for depression until 2 March 2013. The claimant consulted solicitors who on 4 February 2013 sent Daniel Linehan a grievance letter, to date the grievance has not been fully dealt with. On 6 March the claimant received a letter from the defendant’s HR Director, Chris Gosling, requesting that the claimant attend an occupational health appointment.

At the meeting with Professor Bevan the claimant maintained that he said that Miss D had committed an act of gross sexual misconduct, if pressed he would at a grievance meeting provide the details. He also told Professor Bevan that he had terminated his working relationship with her. He said he desperately needed a new teaching assistant. The offer by the department that Becky Coggins could assist was of no real use to the claimant who did not need administrative help.

Following the meeting the claimant remained in London until 23 November, when he went to India and returned on 3 December. He said that on his return to London from America when he walked into the office on Monday morning and said good morning to everyone no one would say “Hi” to him. When he got into the lift people would get off, he was treated as if he was toxic. He said something serious had begun to happen the minute he set foot in the LSE office and he was worried. Professor Saul Estrin isolated the claimant, although he accepted Professor Estrin did send him an email and met with him. As for the woman who got out of the lift, her name was Connson Locke. The claimant said that he had told Professors Bevan and Estrin that he was feeling isolated and depressed and was unable to cope with work.

At the meeting with Professor Bevan on 12 December he asked again about the grievance he had filed and whether it was being investigated to which Professor Bevan said “it’s difficult”. At the same meeting the Professor said they did not think Miss D was going to file a grievance but within two hours the claimant had learnt that she had. He said he felt betrayed by Professor Bevan and the LSE.

As to the claimant’s account to Professor Fahy that he snapped on receipt of the letter the claimant said he did not tell Professor Fahy that he the claimant snapped, he said “it snapped”. By it he meant the LSE’s charade of harming him for that month. It snapped at midnight when he wrote the email because he could not teach the next day without his reputation and resources. He was happy to have received the grievance because he could finally hear what all of his colleagues had heard and the grievance could now be investigated. That was a relief to him. He could hear what the accusations were and refute them. It was a relief. Following the LSE’s investigation he received a formal letter of apology from the LSE Director.

By May 2013 the claimant desperately needed to find an academic career so he made multiple job offers to Oxford, Warwick and UCL. They all rejected him because of the lack of publications. His wife helped him make the offers, she dusted off his resumé and sent them out.

In September 2014 the claimant began working for Ashridge Business School. The work was not what he would have sought but he needed employment. At Ashridge his health was such that he was barely able to get up in the mornings, he worked on average a couple of days a week. He agreed that in April 2015 he taught in Paris, in March 2015 he taught in Brussels. He did not require a sick note nor consult his GP. His female line manager became angry, abusive and emotionally unstable when he gave her personal feedback which she had solicited. They had previously had a good relationship but following the feedback her harassment and anger went too far, she began to falsely and maliciously accuse him of threatening her safety. He had previously gone for long walks and had coffee with her when she told him about her personal life. Her response reminded the claimant of his treatment at the LSE and he filed a grievance against her. Her colleagues started to go after him, the harassment and bullying against him continued and negatively affected his health. The employment was ended by the company.

The claimant was asked about the CV he presented to Ashridge in 2014. Under the heading “Executive education” he cites Delhi Masterclass 2013, two customs programmes in Delhi in 2013 and one in Bangalore with IBM in 2013. The claimant said he attempted to travel to India in 2013 but had to cut the trip short because he was not able to fulfil it. This was the time when he was unable to attend the meeting with Mr Linehan. In India he was not able to face people in the crowds and he returned. As to the masterclasses identified he said he attempted to deliver the masterclass but it was not successful. In Delhi he was able to give executive educational talks to the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited and United Technologies Corporation Carrier and delivered a presentation to IBM in Bangalore. His doctor advised him to get out of bed and interact with people.

Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock is a Professor of Medieval French literature at the University of Oxford, a Fellow of Balliol College where she has served as its Harassment Officer. In 2001, following her husband’s decision to embark on an academic career, they moved to Boston, she worked as a visiting Fellow at Harvard. As a result of Professor Fine’s plagiarism of the claimant’s work and its consequences the claimant suffered a severe depressive episode, chest pains, he would spend most of the day in bed. He was often tearful, upset and considered suicide. He was unable to do any academic or other work. The claimant made a full recovery having received a formal apology. This was the only occasion that her husband became ill until the events at LSE.

At the interview for LSE Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock was concerned that her husband would be questioned about his lack of published papers and she recommended to him that he took proof of the Professor’s plagiarism, MIT’s acknowledgement and apologies. She was told that Professor Estrin did not see it as an issue and had brushed it aside as not being important.

Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock spoke of her husband, professionally and personally, in the highest regard. She described him as a loyal husband and friend, he does not flirt, he is naïve with women. Until the problems with Miss D she had never heard of any rumour or complaint of sexual impropriety against him.

In the spring of 2012 the claimant told her and their son that he had a post-graduate student from the US, Miss D, one of the smartest and hardest working students in his class, but he felt bad about the way she presented herself to the world, namely the shortness of her miniskirts. He said “I feel like an old fuddy-duddy but I wish someone could tell her that she doesn’t have to dress that way to get noticed, she is far too talented”. Miss D wanted the claimant to supervise her master’s dissertation, she was becoming very demanding of his time. Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock and her husband wondered whether it was because Miss D wanted to spend more time with the claimant. The claimant said that he would end it by telling Miss D that he could not afford to work with her but he had relented because she had told him about her allegedly abusive father. They felt sorry for Miss D and wanted to help her.

When Miss D became her husband’s GTA he said that he had never met someone who worked as hard and was as dedicated to his research. They discussed Miss D’s growing coquettishness which made the claimant feel slightly uncomfortable. They discussed strategies to help Miss D understand that the claimant was a 47-year-old happily married husband and father who had no interest in being involved in an extra-marital affair. They invited her to a movie and dinner with themselves and their son as they thought it would send a subtle but clear message to her. On that evening they tried to make Miss D feel welcome but she focused the majority of her attention on the claimant. Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock and her husband subsequently asked their son to invite Miss D to join them for Thanksgiving dinner as she was American and away from her family, she accepted.

Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock and the claimant discussed whether Miss D should accompany him on the US trip, they decided she should. He called her at midday on 12 November and said that Miss D had greeted him at the hotel room door without her bottom half covered up. The claimant and she felt the only way forward was to address the issue sensitively but resolutely. At 5pm Boston time the claimant rang again and said he had not made any progress in speaking with Miss D. He rang at 2am Boston time and described Miss D’s erratic behaviour during the evening of 12 November. The claimant said he was trying to be as supportive as possible whilst also being strict and warning Miss D that he would not be able to continue to work with her if she continued to behave inappropriately and to refuse to address the issue.

Following the claimant’s arrival in Seattle he emailed his wife stating the situation with Miss D was worse. They later spoke on the phone, the gist of it was that he stopped working with Miss D, Miss D had threatened to ruin his life and career in retaliation.

Following his first meeting with Professor Bevan on 19 November 2012 the claimant told his wife that the conversation was positive. Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock strongly encouraged her husband to bring a grievance because in her view it was a clear case of sexual harassment by Miss D.

After a short time the claimant said he was beginning to sense hostility from staff and students. They were becoming concerned that Miss D was trying to ruin the claimant’s reputation as she had threatened. On 23 November the claimant was upset as he had been wrongly accused of leaving Miss D off an email list, he was told that he could not have a teaching assistant which meant he would not be able to properly prepare for his GMiM module nor teach it on 13 December.

Following his return from the trip to India the claimant told his wife that the LSE staff remained hostile. The behaviour of staff and colleagues towards her husband was causing a significant amount of stress and anxiety which built throughout December. The claimant would constantly talk about the situation at home. They had no idea what Miss D was accusing the claimant of. He felt that his colleagues must have heard some bad things about him if they were treating him in such a horrible way. He was very worried about teaching the GMiM module without a GTA. His wife had never seen the claimant as obsessed and stressed as he was during those weeks.

On 12 December the claimant called his wife and told her that he had a further meeting with Gwyn Bevan that morning which did not go well. Gwyn said that he did not need to contact Mike Wargel because Gwyn did not believe that Miss D would make a formal complaint. Gwyn refused to allow the claimant to go to the graduation and had already told him that he could not have the requisite GTA for his GMiM teaching. The claimant said he had then received an email from Daniel Linehan to the effect that Miss D had made a formal complaint. Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock asked what the complaint was, the claimant said he did not know because no details were given. The claimant remained at work and returned home in the evening.

At home he was unable to properly prepare for the GMiM lectures the next day. The claimant was worried because he did not have an assistant to help him and the executive students. He was worried that his own colleagues had been told terrible defamatory rumours about him. After a discussion with his wife he wrote the email to Saul Estrin and Gwyn Bevan. The claimant was much more worried about his teaching the next day than upon finally receiving confirmation about Miss D’s complaint since he felt that she had made a complaint against him. It was not receipt of the false grievance that was the reason for the claimant’s stress levels hitting breaking point at midnight on 12 December rather the situation surrounding his teaching the next day and the accumulation of stress and worry over the previous few weeks.

Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock did not think that her husband was given any support by his department. His colleagues and students believed he was guilty, he was distressed that people thought he was having an affair. It was soul destroying for them both. As an Anti-Harassment Officer she had first-hand experience of dealing with staff and students who complained of or had been accused of harassment. The procedure is important because the process is very stressful, she was aware of the consequences both professional and personal. Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock was surprised that her husband was not told what the accusations were nor was he told to whom he could speak regarding the situation.

The next day the claimant was unable to get out of bed, he was in no state to teach. Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock emailed the LSE to tell them that. She arranged for him to see a doctor, the first available date was 18 December 2012, he was signed off sick. It was upsetting for herself and their son to see the claimant in this way. During the Christmas period which they spent in Belgium her husband remained in bed most of the time save for meals.

On 9 January 2013 Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock, on her husband’s behalf, wrote to Mr Linehan asking him to share a copy of the complaint with the claimant and expressing her concern at the manner in which her husband had been treated, namely it had been more than 50 days since the alleged complaint was made against him and he still had not been informed about the content of the allegation except by way of rumours. This treatment had deeply affected his health and wellbeing and made him unfit from work. A doctor had diagnosed acute stress reaction. The next day Daniel Linehan sent a copy of the formal written allegation of harassment made by Miss D to the claimant. In the email he stated that the aim of the proposed interview with the claimant would be to allow him to give his response to the allegation that had been made. The email states that at the meeting the claimant had the right to be accompanied by a work colleague from within the LSE community or a trade union representative. When Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock saw that she was not allowed to accompany her husband she took exception to it as the LSE’s Harassment Procedure indicated that a friend could accompany the claimant. She subsequently wrote to Chris Gosling and said that she wanted the claimant to be represented by his wife. By 17 March Chris Gosling was seeking to set up an occupational health assessment for the claimant in which Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock could accompany her husband.

In early February Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock went to Princeton University as a visiting Professor for the spring semester. She would return every weekend. During that time her husband remained in bed for much of the day, he would get up if something was scheduled in respect of his litigation against the defendant or if their son had a football match, otherwise he would get up when their son returned home. He stayed awake during most of the night and slept in the morning. When awake all he thought about was what the LSE did to him, their grievances and the lawsuit.

The Ashridge appointment was not the job the claimant wanted however they were desperate for money. The claimant was keen to do his best but it did not work out. He had not fully recovered from his previous illness. During the five and a half years since the events at LSE the claimant has spent the majority of time in bed. He hardly ever washes or showers. He can get up and travel if his wife has pushed him to do it in order to mitigate their financial situation such as at Ashridge.

Mr Wargel is a Corporate Strategist educated at MIT. He met the claimant over a decade ago when working on the strategy team at Boeing Commercial Airplanes. The claimant was pursuing his PhD at MIT. Mr Wargel worked closely with the claimant during the years at Boeing and in subsequent years when, with colleagues, they developed their continued research in strategy and EBE. He is a Fellow of IISL.

Mr Wargel met Miss D in 2012 when he spent a week at the LSE assisting with one class. Subsequent to her appointment as a GTA he had been in contact with her, assisting with her CV and career planning. Mr Wargel was involved in the Seattle part of the November 2012 trip. He had offered the spare room in his home to the claimant and Miss D, the claimant had a suite in a hotel, Miss D accepted Mr Wargel’s offer.

Mr Wargel met them at the airport in Seattle at 11:30pm, they arrived at the hotel after midnight. The “check in” requested by the claimant (an IISL term for pre-brief meeting) began in the sitting area of the claimant’s suite at about 12:30am. During the journey to the hotel Mr Wargel was aware of a sense of tension and conflict between the claimant and Miss D. He thought that when in Boston something unproductive or unprofessional had occurred, he assumed that they would talk it through in the check in. He had previously been the recipient of being “called out” (providing an honest assessment of an occurrence) by colleagues who felt that he presented work which was a team effort as his own. He thought he was being brought into this conversation because of his experience. Miss D was minimally communicative and shut down. The claimant tried to get Miss D to open up, he made a comment about how Mr Wargel had had tough conversations with him. Mr Wargel thought the conversation lasted about four hours, hotel records show that security were called at 4:15am, the claimant checked out at 4:45am. Mr Wargel and the claimant arrived at his home between 5:15 and 5:30am.

Mr Wargel was asked about a summary which he sent on 17 November 2012 to the claimant which included the following:

Mr Wargel said that because of the way the conversation with Miss D had ended and the fact that security guards had been called he was concerned that the matter could escalate, he thought it important to get on record what he had experienced. He was dumbfounded by the security guards, shocked and anxious as to why it had occurred.

Mr Wargel was asked by Ms Johnson, on behalf of the defendant, about the detail omitted from the above summary. His witness statement contained the following information: during the early part of the check in, Mr Wargel said that he could see that, rather than his own words helping Miss D, she had become very agitated. The effect of he and the claimant trying to talk to Miss D was to aggravate her. The conversation was not becoming more productive. He and the claimant thought that if they booked a hotel room for Miss D she would be on more neutral ground than staying at home. He felt incredibly uncomfortable, he did not know what was going on, he assumed that Miss D had behaved unprofessionally and that the claimant was calling her out for it. He was eager to leave the room, he went to book a room leaving the claimant and Miss D together. He then went to the room now booked for Miss D to hear back from them. The claimant joined him. He was calm but displeased at the situation. He said it was not going to work with Miss D, they could not come to terms, he would not be able to work with her anymore, she had become very upset with the outcome. The claimant asked Mr Wargel if he could check on Miss D and talk to her. Mr Wargel did this. When eventually Miss D opened the door she was clutching her laptop to her chest and sobbing. Mr Wargel gave her a quick hug and said it would be okay. He asked if something bad had happened, she shook her head and said no more, he tried to calm her down but she was sobbing and shaking. As he tried to talk to her she began to say “Ted is going to destroy my reputation”. Mr Wargel assured Miss D that was absurd. He could not understand her behaviour or accusations. He returned to the other room. He and the claimant went back to the room where Miss D was. There, the claimant shifted the topic to what Mr Wargel described as how they “should best unwind their working relationship”. At this Miss D became more distraught, the claimant became more calm, trying to reassure her. Mr Wargel stated that the claimant was firmly and fairly trying to make it as easy as possible for Miss D and to calm her down. He said that if they could not end their working relationship productively he would have to defend himself if attacked. The phone rang, it was Miss D’s mother, the claimant and Mr Wargel stepped outside. When they were outside the security guards came towards them and spoke with them.

Mr Wargel thought that the claimant wanted to raise a “call out” in respect of an issue between himself and Miss D which related to what had occurred in Boston. He accepted that it was their conversation with Miss D which caused her distress which began early in the conversation. As to his reference to Miss D being unprofessional in the context of “this week” Mr Wargel accepted that his only experience of Miss D had been in the hotel room.

Mr Wargel was asked about an email he sent on June 18 to Professor Calhoun at the LSE in which he stated:

As a result of what occurred in the hotel with Miss D Mr Wargel cancelled the summit scheduled for the next day. Rasheed El-Moslimany came over to support them. It was then that the claimant shared with them what had happened in Boston.

Mr El-Moslimany is a colleague of the claimant, they met at MIT. He is currently Administrative Director for Analytics and Finance at Virginia Mason Medical Centre (VMMC), Seattle. He is a member of IISL. Together with Mike Wargel Mr El-Moslimany came to the LSE in Spring 2012 to give tutorials and lectures with the claimant. He met Miss D. She wanted to do more work with the claimant and was keen to be part of IISL. When Miss D was the claimant’s GTA Mr El-Moslimany had regular contact with her, they were planning the IISL and LSE alumni engagements in Seattle and India. Miss D wanted to explore the possibility of a job at VMMC. Mr El-Moslimany had booked the claimant into a suite at a hotel, Miss D was to stay with Mike Wargel.

At about 5am on 15 November 2012 he received a call from Mike Wargel saying he needed his help regarding Miss D who had apparently broken down after the claimant had confronted her. Mr El-Moslimany tried to reach Miss D on Skype but she had removed his name from her contacts list. He emailed her but she did not reply. He was reaching out to help Miss D.

Mr El-Moslimany went to Mike Wargel’s home. He found the claimant in a bedroom, doubled over, sobbing for hours and saying “…this has happened again and I hate it when people – I go out to help people and this is how they treat me…”. He was distraught and not able to function. He had never seen the claimant like that. Later they went for a walk, that is when the claimant told Mr El-Moslimany what had occurred. The witness subsequently sent an email to the LSE in support of the claimant.

Professor Nightingale was Professor of the Practice of Aeronautics, Astronautics and Engineering Systems at MIT, she is an industrial engineer in aerospace. She is now a part-time distinguished Professor at the University of Central Florida. Professor Nightingale taught and supervised the claimant in his master’s and PhD at MIT. She introduced him to Boeing. The claimant’s PhD was long, he had a rich amount of work. His doctorate was one of the top if not the top doctorate she had worked with. Professor Nightingale was aware that Professor Fine capitalised on or plagiarised the claimant’s work and published some of the claimant’s research without citing him. Professor Fine gave important lectures and interviews in major business journals in which he presented the claimant’s PhD research as his own. Professor Fine had connections to a number of institutions, when the fallout from his lectures and publishing took place he did not help the claimant with recommendations for positions.

Professor Nightingale said that it is unusual for a doctorate student to go straight from their studies to a top academic institution such as the LSE and be given an important role. She described the claimant as one of a kind due to his experience and talent. She saw him having a career in teaching and potentially in consulting.

In order to be part of the tenure track an academic needs a good track record of publications in high quality peer review journals. The claimant was well on his way to doing that, he had plenty of material, he was well prepared and was on track.

The Professor met the claimant and Miss D in Boston for dinner on 14 November 2012. She found Miss D quiet, there was nothing unprofessional in her behaviour. She was not involved in the conversation even though the Professor tried to draw her out. Professor Nightingale described the claimant as being extremely charismatic in a very exciting way. Based on her own experience of mentoring young women she stated that they can become enamoured with a Professor in that they confuse intellectual excitement with something else.

Dr Dommett was the Associate Dean for Programmes in the DoM at the LSE between 2010 and 2012. She left in October 2012 and moved to the London Business School. Dr Dommett was involved in the recruitment of Miss D as the GTA for the claimant. When the claimant joined in 2012, her office was next to his. The office doors are made of glass, she could see into his office when she was passing. Dr Dommett never saw or heard of any allegations of sexual impropriety on the claimant’s part. He was making a success of the course which previously had not worked. The claimant seemed overworked, he taught 120 students on the MiM course and supervised over 30 students on their dissertations. Students frequently came to see him for advice on their dissertations. Miss D was a student who seemed to need a lot of pastoral attention, Dr Dommett frequently saw her in the claimant’s office.

Dr Dommett interviewed Miss D and another female student for the position of GTA. The pool was limited by the fact that the claimant required the candidate to have done his course on the MiM.

Dr Dommett noticed that Miss D’s style of dress was inappropriate, she would often be in short skirts and low-cut tops whatever the weather. However, other students dressed like that so Dr Dommett did not pay more heed to her than others. The issue became more noticeable in Miss D’s second year when Dr Dommett had reason to pay more attention as she was the claimant’s GTA. Dr Dommett spoke to the Programme Manager of the GMiM course about the fact that Miss D was not dressing appropriately to represent the LSE. They felt it was not their place to raise this with her.

In the summer of 2012 Dr Dommett met with Miss D to discuss her career prospects. Miss D said that she hoped to pursue a PhD and work with the claimant as her advisor. Dr Dommett said this would be unlikely as Miss D would probably not be able to secure a visa in order to stay in the UK. She urged Miss D to look for further work or study in America. Miss D did not seem keen to do this. She appeared to want to continue working with the claimant even though she was aware this could not be through the LSE. Dr Dommett began to notice that Miss D was “becoming clingy” towards the claimant, she was often in and out of his office much more than would have been expected necessary. She discussed Miss D’s “obsessive” behaviour, her dress and how she acted towards the claimant with Becky Coggins. Both were uneasy about Miss D’s behaviour but queried what rights Dr Dommett had to comment on her demeanour or dress. Dr Dommett regrets not pursuing the matter with anyone at LSE. The claimant was oblivious to Miss D’s behaviour and did not raise any concerns with Dr Dommett.

The claimant was a key player in respect of both the MiM and GMiM programmes, he was given the role of Deputy Academic Dean of the GMiM. The course was taught to executives from all over the world, a lot of preparatory work was required, one of the reasons why Dr Dommett authorised a GTA for the claimant.

Dr Dommett stated that had the claimant not become ill he would have gained a tenured Professor role within the LSE or another equivalent institution. The claimant told her he was expecting to attain the position of Professor of Practice following a meeting with Professor Estrin. The claimant would have been able to do external consultancy work which can often double a salary.

Dr Dommett left the LSE amicably in October 2012 to take a senior role at the London Business School. She had coffee with the claimant on 22 November, he spoke about Miss D’s behaviour on the trip to America. He did not go into detail about what had happened but he appeared upset by her behaviour, he said there had been an altercation and he had told her she could no longer work for him. The claimant said he had reported the incident to Gwyn Bevan and it seemed to be in hand.

The statements of three former students of the LSE who were taught by the claimant were before the court, namely Jean-Baptiste Braud, Ilias Simos and Caterina Pereti. They speak in positive terms of the ability of the claimant, describing him as one of the best tutors, if not the best, his work was original and interesting. Jean-Baptiste Braud states that on 25 November 2012 Miss D sent an email to a large number of her classmates with the subject heading “Something that MiM should know about”, it contained her original complaint against the claimant.

Ms Hay was the Department Manager for the DoM, with responsibility for the professional services. In the open plan department her office was in relatively close proximity to the claimant’s office, all offices have glass windows. In the late spring/early summer 2012 she noticed the claimant and Miss D were spending a considerable amount of time together, she would see her in his office. Miss D would wear short skirts. Ms Hay had some concerns that the relationship was closer than she felt comfortable with. She thought she mentioned this to Professor Estrin but there was no basis to do or say anything. In June 2012 the claimant asked her to make Miss D his teaching assistant. As she had concerns about their close working relationship she did not agree to the request but advised Professor Estrin that a formal recruitment process should be followed, it was. Following the appointment Miss D’s behaviour continued.

Ms Hay was the link between her department, Human Resources and the Legal Department, she would follow their advice and, when necessary, disseminate it.

On the morning of 15 November 2012 Ms Hay received a call from Miss D’s mother, who was concerned about Miss D. She said there was some sort of problem on a trip abroad. Ms Hay said she needed to speak to Miss D who then telephoned. Miss D was crying, very distressed, she said two people were outside her door and she was feeling threatened. One of the two was the claimant. Ms Hay did not know what had happened but she did not doubt that what she was being told was genuine. Ms Hay wanted to help Miss D get out. She spoke to Professor Estrin who agreed that the LSE would pay for a ticket to enable Miss D to travel to her mother in New York. She did not contact the claimant, she did not have his mobile telephone number, she could have emailed him. Her duty of care was to a distressed student who was feeling threatened, she wanted to get her to a safe space. It was a very unusual situation of which she had no experience.

Ms Hay contacted Gwen O’Leary in HR to make them aware of what had happened and to obtain advice as to what to do next. Kevin Haynes of the Legal Department became involved. Ms Hay was aware that Miss D was an employee.

The next day Ms Hay sent an email to Gwen O’Leary and Kevin Haynes confirming that Miss D was back in New York with her mother. An email was sent to the claimant requesting a meeting with Professor Bevan on his return. The advice from HR was that the meeting should be opened very broadly, the Head of Department stating that they had been made aware by the named student of an incident which occurred between them in Seattle, they would like to give the academic an opportunity to inform the School of occurrences and offer relevant information which he feels the School should be aware of. As the School was unaware of what allegations or actions the student wished to take, at the meeting they should be cautious not to make any accusations or judgement but see it as a fact-finding opportunity to gain information from the academic should he be willing to share it.

On 18 November Miss D sent an email to Professor Estrin and Ms Hay which began with the statement that she needed to end her employment with the department because she was no longer able to work with the claimant. She stated that she had been on the payroll as a TA. In that email she set out her complaint/concerns. It is Appendix 1 to this judgment.

On 19 November Ms Hay informed HR that Miss D had written her account of events and resigned from her post at the LSE. Ms Hay remained in contact with Gwen O’Leary, the correspondence refers to Miss D being a student rather than an employee. Ms Hay’s evidence was that it was not known whether Miss D wished to make a formal complaint, there was no allegation of harassment, the plan was for Professor Bevan to see the claimant to allow him to give his version of events.

Emails continued between Joanne Hay and Miss D. On 22 November 2012 at 14:49 Miss D sent an email to Professors Estrin and Bevan and Miss Hay seeking an update upon her “report”. She was very concerned that nothing was being done. The email included this:

Later the same day Miss D emailed Ms Hay complaining that an email had been sent to her course cohort encouraging them to vote for the claimant as one of the nominees for the Economist Business Professor of the Year award and she had been left off the mailing list. Ms Hay drafted a reply to Miss D suggesting that she make contact with Kevin Haynes in the Legal Department. Comments were made on her draft by Gwen O’Leary, Kevin Haynes and Professor Estrin. The email stated that Ms Hay was unaware of the email complained of, the department would move to resolve the issue and apologise for any distress. The email included the following:

An issue arose as to whether Miss D was a student or employee. Contact and correspondence again ensued between Gwen O’Leary, Kevin Haynes and Joanne Hay. By 28 November Ms Hay was aware that Miss D had written to faculty members in respect of the claimant. On that day Miss D wrote to Brittany Jones in the DoM. She attached her “report” to the email and stated:

On 29 November Kevin Haynes spoke to Miss D who confirmed that she wished to pursue a formal complaint against the claimant. He sent an email to Ms Hay and Gwen O’Leary stating that they would have to go through the staff procedures. The next day Kevin Haynes asked Gwen O’Leary to send Miss D’s complaint to a member of the Staff Anti-Harassment Panel. Gwen O’Leary replied on 3 December suggesting a modified procedure for ex-employees. On 5 December Gwen O’Leary contacted Miss D by email and gave her the information about the modified procedure for an ex-employee. Following this Ms Hay had no role in the decision-making.

In respect of her handling of the matter Ms Hay said that when the incident occurred her concern was for Miss D’s welfare. The issue of the various complaint procedures is not something that she was familiar with, she was unaware that Miss D’s status was important, those were issues for HR and the Legal Department to deal with. In all her correspondence with Gwen O’Leary and Kevin Haynes Ms Hay did not send them the email of Miss D of 18 November 2012. Her reason for so doing was that Miss D’s email did not request that they treat it as a formal complaint. I have omitted from the summary of Ms Hay’s evidence the many emails which passed between herself, Gwen O’Leary and Kevin Haynes which included emails commenting upon the drafts of others.

Ms Hay accepted that Miss D did not maintain confidentiality in respect of her allegations which she distributed to some students, members of the faculty, Duke CE, and the Economist. She accepted that the claimant maintained confidentiality throughout. Ms Hay did not think it was right of Miss D to circulate this information. She said she found the behaviour bizarre and that Miss D was being very naïve.

Professor Estrin was a Professor of Management in the DoM. In 2011 he was joint head of the department with Professor Bevan. His responsibilities were external to the department, namely its relationship with universities, research network, degrees. He had no direct management responsibility for the claimant. Programmes within the department included the Master’s in Management (MiM), an intensive two-year general management programme. A two-year Executive Global Master’s in Management (GMiM) was subsequently developed.

Professor Estrin did not recall the detail of the claimant’s interview in 2011 but thought he would remember anything unusual. The claimant was the strongest candidate. There were aspects of the claimant’s CV which were not what he would have expected, he lacked publications given the stage of his career. Professor Estrin had no recollection of the claimant speaking about plagiarism by his supervisor or any mental health problems. The claimant probably did mention there had been an issue in respect of his PhD thesis but he did not accept that it was done in the manner alleged by the claimant. Had he done so Professor Estrin would have wished to investigate the matter in more detail with referees and would have followed up on his health by asking HR to investigate. They had to be satisfied that the claimant had the resilience to do the job. The claimant’s appointment was for one year commencing on 1 September 2011.

Professor Estrin described the claimant as charismatic, a good teacher. He introduced innovative and interesting teaching methods and was successful in delivering a popular and effective programme which had previously had its difficulties. The claimant had a very strong personality, he was good at creating a following and encouraging students to engage with his course and his approach. He took the students very seriously and spent a lot of time with them. A two-year extension to the claimant’s employment as a Fellow was granted from 3 September 2012 to 2 September 2014. In 2012 the claimant accepted the role of Deputy Academic Dean within the GMiM programme.

Professor Estrin knew that Miss D had become the claimant’s GTA. He was a little surprised that she had taken the role, it is a part-time low paid role, he thought Miss D was capable of obtaining a good, lucrative job with an employer in banking or consultancy which was the point of the MiM programme. Looking back it was probably rather like a charismatic academic who was to an extent idolised by an impressionable student, albeit that Miss D was a postgraduate. It can happen from time to time, it is for the academic to manage the relationship, keep appropriate boundaries, not encourage students. If there are any concerns about those boundaries the academic should seek advice if required. He was aware that Miss D and the claimant spent a significant amount of time together in the department because the claimant’s office was close to his own. He did not pay particular attention to it but Ms Hay commented on it to him, they had a brief discussion. He assumed the claimant was capable of recognising and keeping appropriate boundaries.

Miss D had a meeting in October 2012 with the Professor. She raised the issue of doing a PhD at the LSE, implicit in the proposal was that the claimant would be her first choice as advisor. The Professor did not remember the meeting but accepted it would have taken place. Miss D was very bright, capable, well-placed to obtain a good job in business without the need for further study. He would have challenged her proposals which did not represent a realistic basis for a doctorate. He would not have allowed her to put the claimant forward as a PhD advisor as he was not someone with an impressive academic background of research and publication therefore not an appropriate PhD supervisor.

On the morning of 15 November Joanne Hay came to see him. She said that Miss D had sounded extremely distressed and frightened during the phone call which she had received from her. The Professor understood that the claimant and another man were involved, Miss D had locked the claimant out of the hotel room, staff at the hotel had become involved which he took to be verification of the situation. Their first priority was to ensure that Miss D was removed and was safe. He approved the use of departmental money to remove Miss D, a demonstration of how seriously they took the situation. From his perspective he considered Miss D to be a student who was abroad with an older male member of staff. For reasons which he did not know, she was distressed and frightened in the middle of the night in a locked hotel room, with that member of staff and another man outside the door. He had no experience of such a situation. They had heard nothing from the claimant, they were not clear as to the correct process so HR and the Legal Department became involved. It was important to hear the claimant’s explanation of what had occurred, the appropriate person to speak to him was Professor Bevan.

It was Professor Estrin who replied to Miss D’s email of 18 November. He thanked her for recounting the events of the past few days, stated that Joanne Hay would deal with the formalities of the employment side. He stated he was very sorry that things had turned out in this way and offered himself as an academic referee for the future. As to the complaint itself, Professor Estrin was relieved that what was being reported was not more serious. Given the distress which was communicated to him, he was concerned that the report might be an incident of the utmost seriousness. He hoped that Miss D would not take the issue further.

Thereafter Professor Estrin had little involvement in the matter, albeit he was copied into some emails. Professor Estrin summarised his position in respect of Miss D’s complaint by saying that the claimant potentially had a case to answer, it should be dealt with in the proper way, once HR had taken over the case it was their responsibility. The communication by Miss D to others was blurring matters.

Asked about the claimant’s career path Professor Estrin said that eight to ten Teaching Fellows are employed in the department each year, he could not remember anyone switching to a permanent teaching role. They are intended for teaching experience. The route the claimant was pursuing was not one that fellowship typically led to. A Fellow’s appointment would not generally be extended beyond a three-year period not least to avoid setting a precedent. The claimant’s role as Deputy Academic Dean was not promotion it was another duty.

The claimant would not have been a candidate for Professor of Practice. That is for someone eminent from a non-academic field who moves across with very limited pay. He and Professor Bevan were talking to the claimant about the notion of the in-practice title in respect of a lecturer or senior lecturer. They were keen to keep the claimant but there was to be a change in regime and they could not hold out a promise of anything because they had no authority to do so. They knew that the claimant “was not exactly the material for a regular faculty appointment.” There was no promise to make the claimant a Professor of Practice. He had no record of published academic work and was not engaged in research which would have led to such publications. He could only have been on a teaching track which starts with a Teaching Fellowship but for a maximum period of three years. A Teaching Fellowship can only be regarded as training for a tenure track if the Fellow is publishing in top-tier journals. Becoming a tenure track or tenured academic staff member requires the production of academic papers and books, at LSE this would require papers in the top-tier management journals. The claimant worked on one thing, his book, which was never published. His CV was not right for the role, it has not developed as it should have done following his PhD.

Sandy Pepper, who was appointed as Professor of Management Practice in January 2013, had been a Partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, held a variety of senior roles including Managing Partner of the European HR practice. His appointment was in recognition of his long career in business and the mutual benefit which he and the department could bring to each other.

Professor Bevan is the Professor of Policy Analysis. In 2012 he was co-head of the DoM, he took responsibility for the internal running of the department.

Professor Bevan had no detailed recollection of the claimant’s interview prior to his appointment. He had no recollection of the claimant speaking about issues of plagiarism or resulting depression. Had plagiarism arisen Professor Bevan would have wanted to investigate it through the claimant’s referees as it was an unusual allegation and a concerning one. He would have been concerned at any mention of significant mental illness given the demands of the teaching course. Professor Bevan would have sought advice from HR as he would have been troubled about appointing someone with a history of mental illness because of his experience of working with people who had depressive episodes. He was enthusiastic about appointing the claimant, he would not have been enthusiastic had there been a problem of mental illness.

At interview, the lack of peer review publications by the claimant was one reason why he would not be eligible for a normal faculty position. The graduate programmes in the DoM are not training to become academics but for people to work in the outside world. What the claimant offered at interview and in his teaching was the connection between his research for his doctorate and the world of practice. The claimant was not being interviewed for a faculty position, thus the absence of academic publications was not so serious. He would be able to relate his research in a practical way to students, he would have current issues in the corporate business he was working with in mind. The claimant was a dedicated and popular Teaching Fellow, he had successfully delivered the course which resulted in an extension of his contract for two years.

Professor Bevan knew nothing about the claimant’s trip to Boston and Seattle, it was not part of the claimant’s LSE teaching programme. He learnt of the incident in America from Joanne Hay who told him of her conversation with Miss D, HR and the Legal Department were involved. It was agreed that he would meet with the claimant on his return from America.

On 16 November 2012 Professor Bevan emailed the claimant stating:

Prior to the meeting Professor Bevan was copied into an email from Miss D to Professor Estrin on 18 November 2012 which contained the earlier email in which she set out her complaint and tendered her resignation (Appendix 1). Professor Bevan was not influenced by the email. He had to meet the claimant with an open mind, no consideration should be given to what form of action might be appropriate until after that meeting. The purpose of which was to hear the claimant’s side of the story, let him tell the Professor what had happened in his own way. It was not a formal interview as no formal complaint had been made.

The claimant seemed jetlagged and tired, he looked like someone who had been through a difficult event. He seemed concerned but there was no sign he was suffering from mental ill-health. Following the meeting Professor Bevan sent an email to Joanna Hay, it stated:

The Professor did not remember the claimant mentioning an incident in Boston when Miss D opened a hotel room partially clad, had he done so the Professor would have made reference to it because it is significant. It was not his place to show the claimant Miss D’s email as the meeting was informal, it was not known whether Miss D wished to formally pursue the matter. He did not see it as his role to investigate the two accounts, nor to reach a conclusion as to which account was correct. Professor Bevan told the claimant that he did not think Miss D would take further action on her complaint. At the time he believed the claimant’s version of what had happened. Later he had some private doubts about whether the claimant was being straightforward, nothing specific just a sense that he had. Professor Bevan saw his role as fairly reporting back what the claimant had said, then leaving the matter to advisors to advise him as to what should happen next. The meeting lasted between half an hour and an hour, the Professor made no notes. He has no recollection of the meeting other than what is in the note. There was an email from another man but there were two conflicting accounts, he did not see how this other person could be relevant.

Professor Bevan did not believe he was aware that Miss D was circulating her allegations to staff and students, he saw it as HR’s responsibility to stop such circulation.

Following receipt of Miss D’s email of 22 November complaining of her omission from a group email (paragraph 98 above) Professor Bevan was concerned. On 23 November he sent the following email to the claimant:

On 10 December Professor Bevan had a further exchange with the claimant by email. In the claimant’s email he thanked the Professor for his email and stated that it meant a lot to him. He also stated “As I mentioned before, please do not hesitate to let me know if you want access to the independent third party executive who witnessed [Miss D]’s behaviour in Seattle.” Professor Bevan said he had passed on the information supplied by the claimant, he was not investigating the matter, it was unclear whether it would progress to a point where an investigation was required, Professor Bevan said it was not for him to contact the witness.

On 12 December Professor Bevan met with the claimant, it was a constructive discussion. If there was a discussion in respect of the claimant having a GTA, which Professor Bevan could not recall, he would have restated the position that the claimant could have one but it would be inappropriate for a GTA to come from the same MiM cohort as Miss D. There was discussion regarding the claimant’s attendance at the MiM graduation ceremony. There were concerns as to whether it was appropriate for the claimant to come into contact with Miss D and her parents. They discussed how the situation might be managed. The ceremony was to be followed by a reception and the claimant suggested he could go to the ceremony and not the reception which the Professor thought was reasonable. He would have accepted the proposal had the claimant not become ill. At 12:36pm the claimant emailed Professor Bevan, it included the following:

Following the claimant’s receipt of the formal complaint he sent an email to Professors Bevan and Estrin stating:

As to the claimant’s contention that he was to be offered the appointment of Professor of Practice, Professor Bevan accepted that he and Professor Estrin were looking at a way of keeping the claimant at the LSE to lecture on one or both courses but it was not easy to find a way of doing so. At the meeting between the claimant and Professors Estrin and Bevan there was talk about creating a position within a practice track. Within that track there was only one position, that of Professor, but the claimant would be unlikely to be eligible for it. They needed a position that was not a normal faculty position. The claimant was not at the right stage of his career to become a Professor of Practice.

Mr Haynes is the head of the legal team within the Secretaries’ Division of the LSE. He is not a practising lawyer, he holds an LLM, one member of his team of four is a practising lawyer. On 15 November 2012 Mr Haynes was contacted by Gwen O’Leary or possibly Joanne Hay. His team deal with cases involving students. He believed he was told that Miss D was a student, that she had made contact with the DoM from abroad and was in a distressed state. Mr Haynes became involved in discussions with Joanne Hay, Gwen O’Leary and possibly Professor Bevan as to the content and drafting of the email which Professor Bevan sent to the claimant on 16 November. On 16 November Gwen O’Leary suggested to Mr Haynes that he should work with Miss D on what actions, if any, she wished the LSE to take and what allegations, if any, she was making against the academic in line with relevant student procedure. Mr Haynes indicated that he would be happy to meet the student but suggested it was better if someone from the department met her in the first instance to see if she wanted to pursue the matter. He did not want to introduce Miss D to the harassment procedures if she was reluctant to go down that route.

Kevin Haynes became aware that on 18 November Miss D sent the email to Joanne Hay and Professor Estrin setting out her account and tendering her resignation. He cannot say when he first saw it. Had he seen it prior to the meeting with Professor Bevan he would not have considered it necessary to advise the Professor about it as there was no formal complaint, the matter remained with the DoM. Professor Bevan was carrying out an initial fact-finding exercise rather than a formal process.

It would appear that it was agreed between Gwen O’Leary, Joanne Hay and Kevin Haynes, that he would communicate with Miss D, evidenced by emails passing between the three when formulating a response to Miss D to arrange the meeting. Kevin Haynes was unable to remember what he had seen or knew at this point. The purpose of the proposed discussion between himself and Miss D was to discuss her options and whether she wished to make a formal complaint. Mr Haynes was unable to remember if he was aware during the week of 19 November of the fact that there was an issue in respect of Miss D’s status as an employee or student.

On 26 November emails are exchanged between Kevin Haynes and Miss D setting up their meeting for 27 November. He seeks to clarify her status. She stated that she completed her MSc when she handed in her dissertation in August, her status as a student ended on October 30 when her student card expired. Her graduation ceremony was to be in December. She was employed by the LSE as a teaching assistant and was issued a staff card for access purposes. Following this exchange Kevin Haynes was again in contact with Joanne Hay and Gwen O’Leary, nothing was resolved as to Miss D’s status. He decided to obtain external legal advice and on 27 November spoke with a member of Pinsent Masons. On 28 November Mr Haynes learnt that Miss D was sending members of the faculty her account of what occurred in Boston. On that day he contacted Miss D apologising for the fact it had taken a day longer to respond, they arranged to speak the following day.

On 29 November Kevin Haynes spoke with Miss D who confirmed that she wished to pursue a formal complaint against the claimant. He sent a “summary” of the conversation to Joanne Hay and Gwen O’Leary. By this time it would appear that Mr Haynes had formed the view that it was a matter for the staff procedure, it would go to a member of the Anti-Harassment Panel. His short note includes the following:

Mr Haynes did not think he was aware of Professor Bevan’s summary of his conversation with Dr Piepenbrock. Asked if he was aware that Dr Piepenbrock had not been given a copy of the complaint being made against him Mr Haynes said “no”. He was asked if he assumed that had been done to which he replied “I’m not sure I assumed anything either way. I don’t recall reflecting on very much about the meeting.”

On 30 November Pinsent Masons gave advice regarding Miss D’s student/employee status to Mr Haynes. It was concluded that the correct route was the staff procedure. Following this Mr Haynes’ involvement ended.

Cross-examined by Mr Hogarth QC as to what if any differences there were between the procedures for dealing with student or employee complaints, one was in respect of the size of the panel, for staff it would be two, for students, three. Mr Haynes was not sure if there was a different appeals procedure. He was pressed as to the fact that in her original report of 12 November it was clear that what Miss D was making was a complaint. Mr Haynes said it was not obvious to him it was a complaint in any event, it is the complainant who decides if there is to be a formal complaint. He agreed that within the complaint were allegations of harassment.

At the time of these matters Mr Linehan was Manager of the Institute of Social Psychology and a member of the Anti-Harassment Panel. He had been a panel member for eight years and had carried out seven or eight harassment investigations. His role was to carry out a series of interviews in compliance with the Harassment Procedure and write a report for the Director of HR. He was the panel member charged with the investigation along with Joanne Taplin-Green, her role was administrative.

The process was commenced by Miss D submitting a formal complaint on the prescribed form dated 10 December 2012, Appendix 2 to this judgment. It largely replicates her 18 November 2012 complaint. On 11 December 2012 Miss D sent her complaint to Mr Linehan. Pursuant to section 8(b) of the Procedure Mr Linehan had to contact the complainant and the alleged harasser to inform them of the investigation, his role and to ask whether they object to his appointment and that of any co-investigator within three working days. He responded the next day seeking confirmation of his appointment. On the same day Miss D emailed her approval, stated that she was on her way to London for her graduation, could meet in the next few days, she would be there until 23 December. In reply Mr Linehan informed Miss D that the end of term at LSE was approaching, the following Monday was his last day in the office this side of Christmas, he intended to commence the investigation on 4 January 2013 with a view to completing it within four weeks. He invited her to arrange a meeting via Skype for the week commencing 7 January 2013.

On 12 December Mr Linehan emailed the claimant in the following terms:

On 14 December Mr Linehan sought advice from Gwen O’Leary as to whether he could provide the claimant with a copy of the complaint because it contained information about a third party, he did not know what his or the LSE’s obligations were in relation to data protection. Three days later Gwen O’Leary forwarded advice to the effect that the complaint could be shown but not those parts which related to other people. Mr Linehan was not satisfied with the response, he responded to the email address which had sent the advice. The response appears to have misunderstood his query.

On 3 January 2013 Mr Linehan accessed his professional email account, there had been no response from the claimant. In an email to the claimant he sought a meeting in the week commencing 14 January and confirmed that a copy of the complaint would be made available in advance of the meeting. Mr Linehan would normally expect to provide a copy of the complaint at the start of the following week but he was concerned about the issue of redaction.

On 8 January 2013 Mr Linehan interviewed Miss D using Skype. There is nothing in the note of that interview which adds to the complaint already made. On 9 January Mr Linehan wrote to the claimant asking him as a matter of urgency to provide his availability for a meeting in the week of 14 January. At 23:09 that night he received an email from Professor Sophie Marnette-Piepenbrock stating that her husband was extremely unwell due to “the malicious accusations made against him by [Miss D] and the way they have been mishandled by the LSE and the Department of Management.” His doctor had diagnosed the case as acute stress reaction, the claimant was to stay off work until the end of January. She pointed out it had been more than 50 days since the alleged complaint had been made against her husband and nearly a month since he was notified of a formal allegation of harassment. He still had not been informed about the content of the allegations except “via vicious rumours in the Department. This lack of information and the general way he has been treated by the LSE in this matter have deeply affected Dr Piepenbrock’s health and wellbeing and made him unfit to work.”

In his response Mr Linehan said that for reasons of confidentiality he could only discuss the case directly with the claimant. He said that he could not respond to emails from any other person however closely connected they were to Dr Piepenbrock. He was not aware that the claimant was unwell, he had received no response to his three emails, the claimant would receive a formal copy of the complaint in the next few days. Later that day he emailed the claimant attaching a copy of the complaint and the report from the US hotel which Miss D had provided. In his witness statement Mr Linehan said that the complaint was redacted by a colleague, he now accepts that more parts were obscured than was necessary. At the time he believed that the reference to the third party in the hotel needed to be redacted as did things that Miss D said to the third party about the claimant. The third party was Dr Mike Wargel the witness the claimant had been urging the defendant to contact for his account. As the claimant’s wife had stated that he was signed off work until the end of January, Mr Linehan proposed a meeting with the claimant on Monday 4 February. He stated:

On 25 January he sent a copy of a transcript of his interview with Miss D to her, she responded with an amended version the following day.

On 4 February Mr Linehan received a detailed letter from Morgan Cole, solicitors instructed on behalf of the claimant which raised many issues in respect of the defendant’s handling of the matter. Mr Linehan said that neither the letter nor the lawyer were for him to deal with, he was a volunteer Anti-Harassment Panel member. The letter raised issues outside the scope of his investigation, he sent it to HR. Mr Linehan was frustrated with the process which had stalled because the alleged harasser had not spoken to him, the sensible way forward was to produce an interim report. It is dated 19 February, signed as complete on 21 February, it is Appendix 3 to this judgment. Mr Linehan’s conclusion was that:

Mr Linehan was unable to progress the matter further. The matter was becoming increasingly complex, Chris Gosling, Director of HR, was corresponding with the claimant’s wife. Mr Linehan though it important that his investigation was concluded so he issued a final report on 22 March 2013. The report is in similar terms to the interim report, the summary/conclusion states:

Mr Linehan said that when he began the process, he had only Miss D’s complaint dated 11 December. He did not know that she had been circulating copies of her complaint to members of the department and other students, that she had been spoken to by Professor Estrin, Kevin Haynes and Joanne Hay, that the claimant had not been told of the content of the allegation. He was asked by Mr Hogarth QC how he could conduct an investigation if he was unaware of all the background facts. Mr Linehan said that the questioning was on the basis of the written complaint not on issues outside it. No one had told him that the claimant was away from work through ill-health, the first he heard of it was the email of 9 January from the claimant’s wife. Asked why he had refused to allow the claimant’s wife her request to accompany her husband at a meeting which was provided for in the policy (page 1411) he said “friend” was defined as part of the School, it did not extend beyond the School. Asked where that definition was to be found he said it was defined by practice.

Mr Gosling was the Director of Human Resources at the LSE between November 2000 and May 2015. Within the HR department were 40 members, six of whom were young professionals known as HR partners who were allocated departments and institutions. The partner would be the first point of contact on HR issues for the relevant department. In this case it was Gwen O’Leary, a professional graduate in her early 30s, she has since left the LSE.

Mr Gosling became involved in February 2013. He was aware that Miss D had made a formal complaint in December 2012 and that prior to that Gwen O’Leary and her team were advising the DoM. He became aware that Mr Linehan was having difficulty with his investigation because the claimant was not responding. Gwen O’Leary responded to Morgan Cole’s letter of 4 February 2013, Mr Gosling could not remember whether he saw the letter at that time or not.

Daniel Linehan delivered his interim report to Mr Gosling on or around 21 February. Mr Gosling needed to find a way to progress matters. The claimant was absent from work, he was not cooperating with the investigation process, he had instructed lawyers and provided them with a considerable amount of information. Mr Gosling thought it important to “get to the bottom” of the claimant’s reported health situation. He wrote to him on 1 March asking the claimant to confirm his agreement to attend an occupational health appointment. On 11 March 2013 he received a letter from Morgan Cole raising a number of issues, some of which were new. The letter stated that the claimant wished them to be addressed as a grievance. It stated that the claimant was receiving counselling through his GP, it did not address Mr Gosling’s request that the claimant be assessed by occupational health, it alleged the claimant had not been given sufficient time to respond.

On 17 March Mr Gosling received an email from Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock stating that she would be available to accompany her husband to an occupational health appointment on identified dates and times. Correspondence ensued. Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock complained that the LSE was engaged in systematic harassment, bullying, discrimination and defamation of character and referred to the fact that the claimant had made a grievance against Mr Gosling and the LSE. On 18 March, on the instructions of HR, the defendant’s occupational health provider, issued the claimant with an occupational health appointment for the following day, one of the dates and at the time requested by his wife. Mr Gosling replied to Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock’s email confirming that efforts would be made to obtain an appointment. It denied that the defendant was harassing the claimant. It stated that they wished him to talk to Daniel Linehan who was undertaking some preliminary enquiries to see if there was a case to answer. Notwithstanding the arrangements made, the claimant did not attend the occupational health appointment.

In order to achieve some progress Mr Gosling decided to take a holistic approach. He permitted the claimant to be accompanied by his wife at interview. He accepted that within the harassment procedure it was stated that the alleged harasser could be accompanied by a friend but said it was custom and practice for that friend to be within the LSE. He thought it inappropriate in such a sensitive and complicated case for the person to be accompanied by his wife. He also arranged for the redaction of the complaint as had been disclosed by the claimant to be investigated. On 22 March Daniel Linehan delivered his final report. On 17 April 2013 Lisa Morrow, Gwen O’Leary’s manager, wrote to the claimant’s wife to arrange an occupational health appointment and an investigatory meeting, no response was received.

On 19 July 2013 Mr Gosling wrote to the claimant, the letter included the following:

The terms and conditions of employment for tutorial and fellow staff at the LSE include certain procedures specified within which is the procedure for resolving complaints about harassment in the School. The procedure is incorporated in the contract of employment. Employment is stated to be on the basis of a written contract which consists of a letter of employment, the handbook and other procedures specified in the handbook. The LSE Overview of harassment policy and procedure contains the following:

All those approached by the complainant for advice must protect that person’s identity. Any disclosure can occur only with the express permission of the complainant. Also, the identity of the alleged harasser must not be revealed to any other person.

If the formal part of the procedure is chosen, then the identity of the complainant shall need to be disclosed to the alleged harasser. The investigator must check with the complainant that this is understood before any such disclosure is made. Once this understanding is confirmed, the investigator shall make clear the need to respect confidentiality to all those involved in the investigation (i.e., the complainant, alleged harasser, any witnesses, and trade union representatives or colleagues chosen to accompany either the complainant or alleged harasser).

A formal written complaint using the form … must be submitted to a member of the Anti-Harassment Panel no later than three months after the alleged incident/s has occurred or within one month of the conclusion of an unsuccessful informal resolution. The complaint should explain the reasons for the complaint and provide all available evidence.

As soon as the complainant and alleged harasser have consented to the appointment of investigators or if no response is received normally within three days of informing the complainant and alleged harasser, the appointed members will begin their investigation. The investigators will carry out the investigation as quickly as reasonably possible and normally within twenty working days of the date of receipt of the written complaint. The complainant and alleged harasser will be advised in advance of any extension to this period with the reasons for the extra time.

The complainant will be interviewed first and the alleged harasser interviewed second. Both parties have the right to be interviewed in the presence of a trade union representative or a friend.”

This statutory modified grievance procedure will apply when employment has ceased prior to the start or the completion of the grievance procedure and both parties have agreed in writing that this should be used rather than the standard formal procedure referred to above. The ex-employee should write to the Human Resources Director to request use of the modified procedure. The Human Resources Director responds in writing to advise whether or not the shortened, rather than the standard, procedure will apply.

There are two states to the shortened procedure:

If the investigator has substantial reason to believe that the complaint of harassment is based on false information or has been made maliciously, this shall form part of the report and may be investigated further. Disciplinary procedure may subsequently be applied.”

As to the distinction between procedures for staff and students if the complaint was made by a student that would be for the Registrar’s Department and if it emanated from an employee it would be for HR.

Mr Gosling was asked about the fairness of the procedure as it evolved in this case. He agreed it was not ideal that the claimant had not been given a copy of the complaint until 10 January, the accused person should know in detail what the allegation is. Mr Linehan acted with the best of intentions. Mr Gosling regarded the original complaint as a potential allegation of harassment, he would want to know if Miss D was raising it as a complaint as a part of their official procedure. For an academic, if found guilty of harassment and the allegations are sufficiently grave, that would be career ending.

Mr Gosling accepted that the process from the first concern being raised on 15 November 2012 until the sending of the complaint on 10 January 2013 could have been done quicker. The process itself created stress, it is incumbent on those who handle it at a professional level to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible because they know it will cause stress. It is implicit in the process that what is complained of should remain confidential save as between those responsible for the professional handling of the matter, if confidentiality is not maintained that can cause stress and distress.

When Mr Gosling became involved in February 2013 he was aware that the claimant was suffering from stress, he was not informed of any diagnosis of a psychiatric illness. He agreed that for anyone subject to a harassment allegation becoming stressed goes with the territory. He had no knowledge of anyone suffering a psychiatric illness as a result.

Consultations with the claimant’s GP were infrequent until 14 April 2010 when he attended with a complaint of chest pain for two months and tiredness.

The GP’s note records:

A review took place on 28 April 2010 when the record includes:

On 31 August 2010 the claimant was reviewed for a medical problem but it was noted:

On 18 December 2012 the claimant was seen by his GP. The note includes the following:

On 8 January 2013 the GP noted the claimant’s description that he was “completely wiped out” and “pretty much unable to get out of bed”. He seemed “disassociated really, verge of tears at times”. The medication was causing side-effects, he was not keen on antidepressants. A referral to a psychologist was made.

On 22 January 2013 the GP noted:

31 January 2013 the GP noted that the claimant had had an interesting session with the psychologist, he needed at least another month off.

28 February 2013 the note records:

The claimant saw his GP in March and on 2 May 2013 the GP’s note records:

5 September 2013 the claimant is noted as “doing better”, seeing Peter Amies who is helping him deal with the situation.

On 30 September 2013 the GP notes a retention of the status quo, Dr Amies had suggested starting citalopram but the claimant was very resistant.

On 1 November 2013 the claimant’s GP wrote a “To whom it may concern” letter which was directed to the defendant. It states:

On 29 October 2013 he is noted as doing well, staying steady.

On 24 February 2014 the history records the status quo, but “his mood getting worse as nothing is happening in terms of any progress. References are being made to occupational health.”

On 10 March 2014 he is recorded as being low and frustrated as there is no movement. Medical notes are being issued identifying him as being unfit for work.

On 26 March 2014 “right-sided chest pains” is noted, the claimant was feeling intense anger and stress about the situation at work, both he and the GP thought the chest pain and the anger and stress were linked.

On 9 June 2014 it is noted that the claimant has got a new job which is described as fantastic, “he feels energised but ‘not as excited as would have expected’, examination reveals a flat affect.”

A diagnosis of depression is noted at all of the identified consultations save for the first on 18 December 2012 when the diagnosis was acute stress reaction.

On 1 August 2014 the claimant requests a sick note for an ongoing problem, it is noted that he feels unable to return to his current work environment. In July 2015 it is noted that the claimant’s depression had become more of a problem again, he is drinking, his sleep/wake cycle is disrupted, he has a low mood. Later consultations in 2015 record a continuation of the diagnosis of depression and a low mood on the part of the claimant.

The claimant first saw Dr Amies on 3 September 2013. On 25 September 2013 Dr Amies wrote to the claimant’s GP, it includes the following:

On 16 December 2013 Dr Amies provided an update to the GP, having seen the claimant on two further occasions. He states, “His mood remains low and he continues to be preoccupied by the situation with his employers, the LSE.” Dr Amies indicated his concern about the situation partly because he had a limited understanding of it. The claimant had not responded to the doctor’s request for further information as he felt low. He did not want to take medication. The claimant had expressed some suicidal thoughts but those were mitigated by his hope that the situation would work out.

On 31 December 2013 Dr Amies wrote a “To whom it may concern” letter which confirmed the claimant had been a patient since 23 July 2013, he had seen him for seven consultations since that date. He gave the medical diagnosis as severe depressive episode without psychotic symptoms, International Classification of Diseases, category F32.2. It is noted that the GP had:

On 4 March 2014 Dr Amies wrote his final letter to the GP, it contained the following:

On 8 May 2014 the claimant sought his own referral to the Occupational Health Clinic at the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust.

On 19 December 2014 the claimant’s wife wrote to the GP and stated:

1 March 2016:

5 May 2016:

4 May 2017:

Professor Fahy is the Professor of Forensic Health/Clinic Director of Forensic Services at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. Prior to taking up his current post he was a lecturer in psychological medicine at King’s College Hospital Medical School and thereafter a Consultant Psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital. He prepared a number of reports for these proceedings. He interviewed the claimant on 29 February 2016 and 14 August 2017. He reviewed all the relevant medical records, the witness statements and read the transcripts of the court proceedings.

The GP’s records confirm an episode of moderate severity depression building up over two months prior to a consultation with the GP on 14 April 2010. The claimant attributes this episode of depression to the problems he faced at MIT. The clinical records confirm the claimant’s depression was resolving in August 2010, he received no treatment for this episode. This single depressive episode gave rise to a heightened risk of further depressive episodes, especially in the context of stressful life experiences including major problems in the workplace.

The impression conveyed by the claimant at interview is of an energetic, highly intelligent, potentially charismatic, somewhat self-aggrandising and emotionally reactive individual. The claimant’s references to his 12-year-old son, he spoke of the boy nurturing him, he had discussed the prescription of antidepressant medication with his son and his wife, suggest that he has difficulties in maintaining appropriate emotional boundaries at times of distress. Professor Fahy concluded that the claimant’s personality is characterised by major strengths including high levels of energy and motivation but also vulnerabilities that include intense emotional reactivity and, perhaps, difficulty coping with perceived or actual failures or rejection. He found no clinical evidence to suggest that the claimant was likely to become depressed in December 2012 were it not for exposure to significant stress in the workplace.

In his first report Professor Fahy states:

Professor Fahy describes the claimant’s account as being one of stress and apprehension following his return to the LSE from the American trip of November 2012, the sudden deterioration in his mental health on 12 December 2012 and the onset of a full panoply of depressive symptoms including withdrawal, loss of appetite, hopelessness, reduced libido, loss of self-esteem, poor self-care and intolerance of social contact. His symptoms were also characterised by anxiety, loss of trust and fear, especially of women. The contemporaneous clinical records confirm reports of disturbed sleep pattern, anxiety, reduced appetite, hopelessness and tearfulness. Self-rated symptom measures record markedly elevated scores on a screening questionnaire for depression, PHQ-9, on 18 November 2012. The contemporaneous records described fluctuations in his condition but with persisting low mood, anxiety and sematic symptoms. Dr Amies’ clinical records from September 2013 to March 2014 confirm the persistence of clinically significant depressive and anxiety symptoms, perpetuated by the work situation and, at most, only responsive to support and encouragement from Dr Amies. The overarching diagnosis was major depressive disorder with anxiety (DSM 5 296.33).

The claimant’s depressive illness improved in the final months of his employment with LSE, he was well enough to apply for and obtain work at Ashridge Business School which commenced in September 2014 when his LSE contract expired. The claimant’s account of the period indicates he was continuing to suffer significant depressive symptoms, albeit of mild clinical severity and that he had not showered or shaved for a month before taking up the Ashridge job. The absence of any reference to depressive symptoms in the GP record between 9 June 2014 and 10 July 2015 indicates that the claimant was not experiencing severe or intrusive depressive symptoms, it does not mean that the claimant was not experiencing depressive symptoms. The preceding episode of depression, severe and lengthy in duration, would have caused a significant reduction in psychological resilience and heightened sensitivity to adversities in the workplace. The claimant suffered a relapse of depression in June/July 2015 precipitated by his experience as Ashridge. The symptoms of this condition are persisting. The clinical records confirm a deterioration in mood by July 2015. On interview the claimant describes persisting depression, hypersomnia, poor concentration at times, occasional suicidal thoughts, low self-esteem, prominent anxiety and avoidance behaviour, irritability, difficulty trusting others and prominent feelings of shame and guilt. The claimant confirms a degree of improvement but in the opinion of Professor Fahy the persisting symptoms continued to justify a diagnosis of a depressive disorder of moderate severity or a mixed anxiety and depressive disorder.

Prior to the events at LSE there was a psychological vulnerability most likely to be exposed if the claimant experienced significant workplace problems. In his first report Professor Fahy stated that depressive illness was precipitated by notification of Miss D’s formal complaint on 12 December 2012. He was already sensitised and stressed by the effects of this complaint because he was aware that Miss D had disseminated her version of events, which he considered maliciously intentioned and false, and he felt unsupported by the school, for example being advised not to attend the student graduation and the lack of access to a GTA.

Following his review of the claimant on 14 August 2017 Professor Fahy found little change in his psychiatric condition. He fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for a major depressive disorder with accompanying anxiety symptoms. He remained intensely preoccupied with his claim against the LSE which exerts a psychologically immobilising effect on his day-to-day life. Professor Fahy and the treating clinical team agree that the claimant will not benefit from psychological treatment until the conclusion of the litigation. He would probably benefit from the prescription of antidepressant and anxiolytic medication. The claimant has received little evidence-based treatment.

At the August 2017 interview the claimant took issue with Professor Fahy recording in the first interview that the claimant said “I snapped” having received formal notification of the complaint. The reference should be “It snapped”. He told Professor Fahy that the formal notification of Miss D’s complaint against him was not a source of acute psychological distress as he was expecting it to happen. His depression was caused by the way in which the LSE managed the complaint and the circumstances surrounding it, namely the delay in revealing its content, the withdrawal of the GTA, the instruction not to attend the graduation ceremony. The problems were further compounded by the alleged failure of the LSE to retain him as an employee and promote him.

Following the second interview Professor Fahy stated that the onset of the claimant’s depressive disorder was multifactorial in causation. The events at LSE which, if accepted by the court, are likely to result in psychiatric illness are stated to be:

Preventable and unnecessary delay on the part of LSE;

A failure to stop Miss D circulating the information;

A failure to serve the claimant until two months later with the full content of the report.

The Professor did not consider the claimant was clinically depressed prior to 12 December 2012. He was lacking confidence and becoming stressed and apprehensive. A sudden onset of depressive illness with the full panoply of depressive symptoms is not unusual. The claimant had received the complaint, he was preparing for a teaching responsibility which was compromised by a reduction in concentration, in such circumstances an acute breakdown was understandable given his personality. The claimant is very emotionally reactive, an intense reaction is in keeping with his clinical history and the way he presents on a clinical assessment.

Professor Fahy and Professor Maden, the psychiatrist instructed by the defendant, agree that the claimant has narcissistic and borderline personality traits, one of which is a tendency to have a catastrophic reaction in the face of criticism or adversity. Another is self-aggrandising, namely a sense of superiority, difficulty coping with actual or perceived rejection. In respect of borderline personality traits they would include coping poorly with the ending of relationships, rapidly switching from idealising people to devaluing them, keeping appropriate boundaries in relationships. Such personality traits can cause problems in the workplace but they can also give rise to charisma and make a person very interesting, they can present as strengths. The claimant does catastrophise, thus once he reaches a position it is difficult for him to get back to one of rational analysis.

It is common for a person to emerge after some six months of depression from an episode even with no treatment. The PHQ depression score of 12/63 on 23 July 2013 would equate to minimal depression but it had to be looked at in the context of the surrounding reports by Dr Amies who is not describing recovery. The scoring does not fit with the psychiatrist’s assessment.

People with personality problems have a heightened risk of a major depressive order, they are at risk of developing maladaptive responses, depressive responses, anxious responses to situations. There is nothing unusual in that. The claimant’s symptoms of being withdrawn, not engaging with friends, not looking after his personal hygiene, beginning to drink more, a reversal of his sleep pattern, hopelessness, some suicidal ideation were of a depressive disorder not a personality disorder.

The claimant did not tell Professor Fahy that he had been to India in early 2013. Professor Fahy said that a person with severe depression could go on such a trip, how they would function and perform would depend on their level of depression. He would expect someone with a significant depressive illness to be compromised in terms of their ability to concentrate and motivated sufficiently to deliver a programme of lectures. It would not stop anyone delivering the lectures. The trip raised a question about the persistence and consistency of the depression, it did not undermine the clinical observations of treating clinicians or Professor Fahy’s own observations. If the claimant was able to concentrate sufficiently well to give talks and do that properly he would have been well enough to attend an interview with his employer, however that would be more difficult given the nature of the complaint and the threat and his problems with his employer including loss of trust. Similarly, if he was well enough to correspond with lawyers in January and February 2013, he could have responded to an email asking for dates to attend for interview.

Professor Fahy said that in the context of severe depression there is a global impairment of function on a day-to-day basis but it may not be severe all the time. There can be periods of better function or short periods of sustained concentration or achievement. The claimant has a very reactive personality and that superimposed on his low mood results in intense reactivity whether positively or negatively. The persistent quality of his personality interacts with his depressive symptoms with the result that they fluctuate and his negativity and hopelessness will vary according to the circumstances. It is genuine depression. The Professor accepted that he was reliant on the claimant’s account of his symptoms, but also on the account he gave to treating clinicians who have interacted with him and the account supplied by his wife.

In respect of the claimant there are three episodes of psychiatric illness: one at MIT; two at LSE; three following Ashridge. Had episode three not occurred he would have expected recovery. Episode two increases the risk of relapse. Published evidence indicates that following a single episode of a major depressive disorder the chance of relapse is around 50%, following two episodes there is a probability of recurrence. Episode two would magnify the severity of episode three. Episode three occurred in a workplace situation, it impacts on likely career recovery and progression, thus a cumulative psychological burden from these episodes will reduce resilience particularly to events occurring in the workplace. It will also impact upon the likelihood of career recovery and that will impact on the likely duration of further episodes. Where the episodes are precipitated by workplace problems, there is a likelihood that further episodes of that nature will have a poorer outcome and the prospect of recovery is accordingly diminished. Put shortly, the episode would be more severe and longer. Had episode two not occurred, Professor Fahy said that episode three would be less likely.

An adjustment disorder, as found by Professor Maden describes a milder condition of anxiety or depression occurring in response to a specific stressor. Depressive disorder involves a more disabling mood disorder with more severe symptoms, more severe functional impairment. Such a disorder does not automatically assume the presence of a stressful event as a precipitant, albeit that such an event has precipitated the episode. The description by Dr Amies of the claimant’s symptoms taken contemporaneously and the retrospective account of symptoms are of quite severe depressive symptoms that are functionally disabling, persistent and at the moderate if not the severe end of the clinical spectrum.

Professor Fahy agreed with Professor Maden that the persistence of the claimant’s reported symptoms does not represent a typical course of either depression or adjustment disorder.

In cross-examination, and contrary to his written evidence, Professor Fahy accepted that to anyone unaware of the claimant’s previous episodes of collapse in response to the events at MIT his collapse on 12 December would have seemed unexpected and unexpectedly severe. In re-examination the point was taken up as follows:

As to the conclusion of re-examination Professor Fahy was asked by the court as to what was foreseeable, the Professor reiterated that what he had said in his report identified at paragraph 170 above had not been altered by anything he had heard in court when giving evidence.

Professor Maden is Emeritus Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Imperial College London, he has been a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist since 1992. He left the NHS in February 2012 since then he has worked as a Consultant in the independent sector. He interviewed the claimant on 15 May 2017. Professor Maden reviewed the medical records, the pleadings, limited records relating to the claimant’s employment at Ashridge and Professor Fahy’s first report.

Professor Maden stated that the claimant’s description of the episode in 2010 at MIT does not fit with the diagnosis of a depressive episode. The usual pattern is for the mood to decline over a period of weeks or months, particularly so in a case of a severe depressive episode. The claimant’s almost immediate decline into an apparently profound depressed state is atypical. His recovery was atypical, most people with severe depressive symptoms do not get better without treatment. The claimant declined all treatment and quickly became better once his grievance was addressed. The previous episode has some elements of a mood disorder. Given the rapidity of onset and the rapidity of recovery when the contingency changed, Professor Maden believes it was a functional condition, i.e. it served a purpose or function. The claimant also has some maladaptive personality traits if not a personality disorder.

There are striking similarities between his present condition and the 2010 episode. Both episodes are highly unusual and inconsistent with clinical depression. The impression conveyed by the claimant is of an energetic, highly intelligent, potentially charismatic, somewhat self-aggrandising and emotionally reactive individual. His problems with boundaries are severe as evidenced by the examples of interaction with his son. The constellation of features, namely high levels of energy and motivation but vulnerabilities including intense emotional reactivity and difficulty coping with perceived or actual failure or rejection amount to narcissistic personality traits which are prominent features of the claimant’s personality. They have made a major contribution to the current and 2010 episodes. The essential element in both was not so much stress as the claimant feeling that he was being challenged, thwarted or treated badly. His narcissistic traits mean that he responds to such adversity in an extreme way.

Professor Maden does not believe that the claimant’s sudden and extreme reaction to the stresses he faced was foreseeable. However, from a clinical perspective it was important that investigation should have been prompt, efficient and definitive given that the complaint had been circulated. The events were stressful and may cause psychological harm in some people. As to Professor Fahy’s comment that if there were unnecessary and preventable delays in addressing the original concerns and complaints raised by Miss D and the claimant, that would have increased the apprehension and stress which the claimant experienced, Professor Maden agreed. He also agreed that any preventable failure to contain Miss D’s complaints would have been stressful for the claimant. If Miss D’s complaints were false or misleading the threat to the claimant’s reputation was an additional exacerbating factor in causing his psychological symptoms.

Professor Maden believes that the history of the 2010 matter suggests that the claimant would have recovered quickly following resolution of the LSE matter only if the complaint had been resolved in his favour. His personality is such that he would have found it difficult to accept any resolution that was not in his favour. The diagnosis of a major depressive disorder with anxiety is a possibility however he prefers the diagnosis of an adjustment disorder in a man with maladaptive personality traits. If there is a depressive condition its manifestations are greatly exaggerated and distorted by functional symptoms related to the claimant’s personality and his grievance. As to the claimant’s depressive illness improving such that he could apply for work at Ashridge and commence in September 2014, Professor Maden said this is more consistent with a milder condition of an adjustment disorder rather than a depressive episode. He is more sceptical than Professor Fahy about the claimant’s self-reporting. Poor self-care of the severity claimed by the claimant implies relatively severe depression which is inconsistent with him having obtained a job and worked at Ashridge.

Professor Maden places considerable reliance on the fact that the claimant made a rapid recovery by June 2014 without any proper treatment. As early as 23 July 2013 he had a normal BDI score which is inconsistent with significant depression. He would not expect a moderately severe depressive episode to improve spontaneously. The likely explanation lies in the nature of the claimant’s personality, his narcissistic traits, the functional overlay arising from the latter and his sense of grievance. The spontaneous recovery, although longer, is consistent with the pattern he described in relation to the 2010 episode. In the Professor’s opinion neither episode is consistent with a typical course of moderate to severe clinical depression.

Professor Maden accepts that the relapse in June/July 2015 was apparently caused by problems at Ashridge, however it appears to him that the claimant’s behaviour made a major contribution to events there. Professor Maden was struck by the parallels between the situation at Ashridge and at LSE, namely that within a few months of the claimant beginning work there he had problems with a woman member of staff which may have resulted in her saying that she felt unsafe meeting with him on a one-to-one basis. The common feature is the rapid escalation, another is the claimant saying he has been the victim of malicious falsehoods and finally his abrupt and rapid withdrawal from the situation and what is described as a retreat into illness. When the claimant’s position is challenged he overreacts and then retreats into a sick role. Depression is very unlikely to have any relevance to this event. The claimant was not more sensitive to this harm because of his earlier experiences at LSE, the problem lies with his personality. He reacted in an extreme way in 2010, at LSE and at Ashridge.

The claimant has refused most treatment including basic medical advice. Professor Maden believes the claimant’s symptoms are to a large extent a weapon in the battle with the LSE so he is reluctant to lose them. There is no prospect of the claimant engaging with treatment until the litigation concludes, when it does treatment will probably be unnecessary. The claimant’s personality would make treatment difficult. The fact that LSE and Ashridge episodes have been longer is a reflection of the functional component in the claimant’s illness. The conclusion of the litigation is likely to result in a substantial improvement of his symptoms so long as the outcome is favourable. If matters were resolved in his favour it is likely that he would bounce back as he did after the events at MIT and as he was doing at Ashridge before he ran into problems there. The claimant was able to obtain a job at Ashridge despite what he says were continuing symptoms of moderate to severe depression.

Professor Maden describes the claimant as being obsessed by the LSE events and their sequelae, his primary focus was on his battle against LSE rather than his health. At interview the claimant had a good command of the extensive and detailed information relating to his claim against LSE which is inconsistent with his reporting of poor memory and concentration. He sometimes spoke in hyperbolic and probably exaggerated terms. Professor Maden believes the claimant has exaggerated some of his symptoms.

Following the LSE events the claimant suffered a second episode of mood disorder which Professor Maden diagnoses as an adjustment disorder shaped by maladapted personality traits. In his report Professor Maden states:

Professor Maden states that the claimant’s ill-health in December 2012 should be considered as an adjustment disorder modified by the claimant’s personality and functional overlay, it was precipitated by events at LSE. For anyone unfamiliar with the details of the 2010 episode, the claimant’s rapid withdrawal and decline in December 2012 was “unusual to the extent of being bizarre”. The claimant showed none of the usual symptoms of developing a depressive illness, his rapid decline was not foreseeable.

Professor Fahy and Professor Maden agree that the claimant had a significant history of psychological vulnerability prior to 2012. They are agreed that the sensitive nature of the claimant’s personality structure could give rise to problematic behaviours and coping responses in response to the normal stresses of life including the employer’s need to investigate serious allegations. These sensitivities could account for severe or exaggerated stress reactions to mistreatment or failure of duty of care by the employer. They are agreed that the events at work were the cause of the claimant’s psychiatric breakdown at the end of 2012. Both are agreed that the claimant will be at a high risk of relapse of depressive symptoms in the future, especially if exposed to adversities in the workplace.

By the time he came to give evidence Professor Maden had become aware that in early 2013 the claimant made a trip to India where he undertook talks or lectures. It increased his concern that the claimant was exaggerating his symptoms, what the claimant said about the aftermath of the events of December 2012 is, to an extent, inconsistent with him having undertaken a lecture trip to India. Professor Maden was surprised, he would not expect someone with a severe depression to have the energy and motivated to organise and undertake such a trip. Professor Maden said that the job applications in early 2013, the claimant’s consultation with lawyers, the India trip indicate that the low mood was primarily a reaction to circumstances in a man with an unusual and vulnerable personality. A severe depression is not reactive to circumstances, the claimant’s mood state is reactive.

Allegations of sexual misconduct were accepted by Professor Maden as being not ordinary but by no means unknown. The GP record of 18 December 2012 demonstrated that the claimant’s view of and his reaction to being told there was a complaint was more extreme than the reality of the circumstances warranted. On 12 December the claimant learnt that the allegations had been circulated amongst the staff, the staff were refusing to speak to him, the information had been circulated amongst students, he was not to attend the graduation, the claimant was the only person in the LSE world which he inhabited who did not know the allegation, Professor Maden accepted these were very stressful events that were likely to lead to anxiety in anyone but he thought the claimant’s reaction was excessive.

Professor Maden did not believe the events of themselves would have been likely to cause a psychiatric injury. They would make someone anxious but that is not the same. He did not think it foreseeable that they would cause a psychiatric injury. He accepted that the anxiety in a person facing the allegations would, in a minority of those people, result in the development of mental health problems, the size of the minority would depend on the seriousness of the allegation and the manner in which it was handled together with the vulnerability of the individual. Professor Maden said that as most of the group would not suffer psychiatric consequences “on the balance of probabilities one would not expect that as a result of these events there would be psychiatric injury.” He did not think it was foreseeable that the claimant would react by immediately going off sick and taking to his bed, he qualified that by saying that unless one knew about the way he had reacted to the MIT allegations. Subject to that he did not think it was foreseeable.

The claimant’s was not a typical case of clinical depression, severe depression or adjustment disorder. It was hard to rely on the body of knowledge that relates to typical cases, for that reason Professor Maden has emphasised the individual history in this case.

Professor Fahy and Professor Maden are at one in their view that the claimant is preoccupied by this claim. I agree. It is evidenced by the detail of his allegations, reflected in a 99-page Particulars of Claim. There were occasions when his recollection of events was contradicted by others who had been present. One example is his account of the meeting with Professors Estrin and Bevan when he believed that he was to be offered the appointment of Professor of Practice. I regard the evidence of both Professors as founded on fact, a realistic assessment of the claimant’s career and their own knowledge of what could be achieved within the LSE. I accept their account of this meeting to the effect that they had no power to award such an appointment. Further, the claimant did not have the academic credentials, the relevant high quality publications or the practice credentials for such an appointment. If the claimant did believe that such an appointment had been, or was to be offered, I find that this is a reflection of his opinion of himself rather than the professional reality of the situation.

There is one matter which did raise a real issue as to the credibility of the claimant, namely the evidence of his trip to India in the early part of 2013. This was elicited by Mr Warnock QC in cross-examination. He had identified these facts from the claimant’s CV for the Ashridge appointment. In my view the claimant sought to minimise the extent of the trip. He accepted that he went but said it was cut short because of his ill-health. The claimant visited Delhi and Bangalore where he gave talks and/or lectures, however successful or unsuccessful he perceived them to be. This trip took place when the claimant was on sick leave from LSE, when his wife was writing on his behalf stating that he was too ill to attend an interview, when there was no response to requests from the LSE to attend an occupational health assessment. Mr Hogarth QC realistically accepted this to be a “significant omission”. It was. I do not regard this omission as wholly undermining the evidence of the claimant but it does call into question how much he was able to do in the early months of 2013, whether he could have responded more positively to the LSE’s request for an interview and occupational health assessment and whether he was wholly justified in retiring to his bed and refusing to take part in any communication with the LSE.

By November 2012 Miss D’s conduct had caused the claimant concern sufficient to discuss the matter with his wife. The claimant’s colleagues, academic and administrative, had noticed the frequency with which she was in his office. Miss D’s clothing had caused comment, it being thought by some that it was inappropriate within a professional context. Dr Dommett noticed that Miss D was becoming “clingy” towards the claimant. Professor Estrin thought Miss D’s wish to pursue a PhD at the LSE was connected to the fact that she wanted the claimant as her supervisor. Professor Nightingale had seen young women become enamoured with a Professor and confuse intellectual excitement with something else.

The observations of the claimant’s colleagues, the experience of more senior academics provide a basis for finding that in all likelihood Miss D had developed something of an infatuation for the claimant. He was sufficiently aware of Miss D’s attention that he instigated a plan to show her that he was a happily married man. This, alone, should have alerted the claimant, as the senior colleague, to the need to observe professional boundaries with Miss D, particularly when he embarked upon the American trip.

The only account which the court has as to what occurred at the door of the hotel suite in Boston is that of the claimant. Miss D has not been called by the defendant. Her 18 November 2012 complaint is silent as to the alleged incident. The claimant alleges that she opened the suite door wearing only a sweater top with little or nothing beneath. The evidence of the claimant, Professor Estrin, Dr Dommett and Joanne Hay as to Miss D’s previous conduct and dress does provide an evidential basis for finding that if Miss D did behave in a provocative, even sexually provocative manner towards the claimant, it would not be inconsistent with her previous behaviour at the LSE. Miss D had demonstrated that she wished to spend time in the company of the claimant. It may be that in a hotel in Boston, away from the LSE, Miss D saw her opportunity. If that was her aim, she was disappointed. On the claimant’s account he regarded her behaviour as wholly inappropriate. Given her previous behaviour and dress as described by witnesses I am not sure that Miss D would have viewed such conduct in the same manner.

I accept that Miss D’s conduct in Boston caused the claimant considerable concern. It prompted a phone call to his wife and thereafter a series of conversations with Miss D. If Miss D did behave in the manner alleged then the sensible course for the claimant was to keep a professional distance and seek advice from his LSE department/HR as to the handling of the matter. Given the perceived inappropriate behaviour of Miss D it was imperative for the claimant, the senior colleague, to observe professional boundaries. In his attempt to deal with the matter the claimant had a conversation with Miss D in a public park in the early afternoon of the day of the incident. The claimant tried to discuss Miss D’s behaviour but she was rather elusive. Between 6:30 to 8:30pm, in the same park, he attempted to have another conversation with Miss D, she continued to be elusive. On the claimant’s account he told Miss D that if she could not behave professionally and communicate in a constructive way to resolve the issues he would no longer be able to work with her, he told her she could not attend his lecture the next day. She remained elusive.

Insofar as the court has a contemporary account from Miss D of these conversations it is contained in the Skype messages in which she took part the following morning set out in paragraph 22 above. Its content is not inconsistent with the claimant’s account of the conversations. It does appear that the claimant was not making clear to Miss D what his concerns were. Having tried once, on the claimant’s account resolved nothing, he should have stopped. To embark upon a further two-hour conversation with Miss D was inappropriate and unnecessary.

The following morning the claimant told Miss D she could attend the MIT lecture. Following the lecture he tried again to discuss the matter with her, she refused to engage in the conversation. In his evidence to the court the claimant demonstrated no insight into the inappropriateness of pursuing such lengthy conversations in respect of a junior colleague who, on his account, had behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner.

Upon arrival in Seattle the claimant proposed to Mike Wargel and Miss D that they should commence a conversation as to how professional and respectful colleagues treat each other. This began at 12:30am in a hotel suite. To embark upon yet another conversation in the early hours of the morning in a hotel room, a young woman in her twenties with two older men goes beyond inappropriate, it is unprofessional and wrong. The meeting lasted well over two hours. Mike Wargel accepted it was their conversation with Miss D which caused her distress and agitation. The claimant told Miss D he was going to have to end their working relationship. He told her he could no longer stand for her unprofessionalism and mediocrity. It was upon hearing this that the claimant states that Miss D became hysterical and ran after him pleading and in tears. Independent evidence of Miss D’s distress is to be found in her contacting her mother, who contacted hotel security and the LSE.

There is no sensible justification for the claimant’s conduct in the early hours of 15 November in the hotel room in Seattle. I am satisfied that there was nothing sexual in the claimant’s persistence in requesting these conversations. It was an inability to recognise and respect boundaries, compounded by an absence of insight into the distress which he was causing to a young woman, notwithstanding her alleged conduct which caused these conversations. The explanation for the claimant’s conduct is in part provided by Professors Fahy and Maden, namely his personality traits and inability to observe boundaries.

I accept that the claimant and Mike Wargel were dumbfounded by the arrival of security staff at 4:15am. They believed they had done nothing wrong. They were upset by the arrival of the security guards and the implications for their own behaviour. Their reaction is reflected in the fact that they cancelled their professional engagements for that day. Pertinent is the evidence of Rasheed El-Moslimany who later found the claimant sobbing and distraught (paragraph 77 above). I accept the evidence of Professor Maden that what might seem to be an extreme reaction on the claimant’s part is a reflection of his personality.

There is nothing in the evidence before the court to suggest that the claimant positively encouraged any behaviour or advances by Miss D whether in the LSE or in America. There is force in the observations of Professor Nightingale as to the effect of a charismatic teacher upon a student. The claimant was alive to Miss D’s interest in him. When, on his account, it manifested itself in sexually provocative behaviour in Boston he was unable to deal with it. His attempt to manage the situation moved from inappropriate and inept to unprofessional and wrong. It caused considerable distress to Miss D. It is not difficult to understand why Miss D felt she had a legitimate cause to complain to the LSE in respect of the conduct of the claimant.

Mr Hogarth QC, on behalf of the claimant, states that this complaint has a significant omission, namely Miss D’s alleged conduct in Boston. He is correct. In her complaint, Miss D’s factual account of her position at the LSE and the stated reasons for the trip to America are undisputed. In the third paragraph she sets out her account of the conversations which would have taken place on 12 November. The claimant denies much of the content of the conversation. Her account refers to the fact of two people spending so much time on park benches, the claimant uninviting her to his seminar, calling the next day to re-invite Miss D, Miss D calling her mother in tears, her mother calling the claimant to try and find out what was going on. These facts are not disputed.

Exactly what was said by the claimant and Miss D in over three hours of conversations in Boston is not clear. It is telling that when the claimant and Mike Wargel were attempting to speak with Miss D in the hotel room in Seattle the claimant did not refer to the detail of the incident in Boston. It was not until the next morning that he told Mike Wargel and Rasheed El-Moslimany what had occurred. I find it likely that when the claimant was speaking with Miss D in Boston he did not speak directly about the detail of her alleged conduct. He attempted to deal with the matter in more general terms using words and phrases which are singularly his own with the result that Miss D did not understand what he was trying to say. I regard her Skype messages the next day as reflective of this.

Of the events in Seattle, Miss D in her complaint stated that “things blew out of control”. I agree. There is nothing in her account of what occurred in the Seattle hotel which is significantly contradicted by the evidence of the claimant or Mike Wargel. She states that she was exhausted, jet lagged and frightened, in a very bad situation, alone in a hotel room with two men. Miss D’s attempt to book a flight to New York, her involvement of her mother and the involvement of the security guards lend credence to her account, and to the effect which the behaviour of the claimant, and to a lesser extent Mike Wargel, were having upon her.

The account was received by Joanne Hay and Professor Estrin on 18 November 2012. Whether or not it was a formal complaint it was a serious matter involving a member of the department staff, it contained an allegation of harassment. Miss D identified her employed status within the LSE. HR in the person of Gwen O’Leary and Kevin Haynes of the Legal Department became involved. From 18 November Gwen O’Leary, Joanne Hay and Kevin Haynes were in regular email contact drafting and redrafting emails, discussing issues and not getting very far. Mr Hogarth QC, on behalf of the claimant, sought to identify who was responsible for any decision taken during this time. Notwithstanding his skill, at the conclusion of the defendant’s evidence, it was difficult to identify who took responsibility for any decision. It was not clear who gave the advice that the claimant should not be shown Miss D’s account. My view is that those who were purporting to deal with the matter were passing the buck, one to the other, disclaiming any responsibility for decisive action.

By 22 November 2012 it was known that Miss D was communicating her complaint to fellow students, later it was sent to members of the faculty. No steps were taken to stop this dissemination. It was not until Mr Haynes finally spoke to Miss D on 29 November that she was told the matter should remain confidential. By 19 November Professor Bevan had met and spoken with the claimant. It took a further ten days before Kevin Haynes spoke to the Miss D. No good or even adequate explanation has been given as to why it took so long.

Once Miss D’s complaint was filed on 10 December 2012 it was incumbent on the defendant to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the Harassment Procedure. Mr Linehan was appointed to conduct the process. He was aware that he was taking a period of leave around Christmas and the New Year. It is not known whether he informed those who asked him to carry out this procedure of this fact. No one informed Mr Linehan that the claimant had been seen and proffered a witness statement. On 12 December he emailed the claimant to inform him that a complaint had been received but did not send him a copy of the complaint. It was not until the claimant’s wife on 9 January 2013 chased for a copy of the complaint that, the following day, a copy was sent, then in a redacted form. Nothing better demonstrates the absence of effective communication between those purporting to manage these issues at the LSE than the content of those redactions, namely the evidence of Mike Wargel, the witness the claimant had urged the defendant to contact and from whom he had supplied a statement to the defendant.

From 9 January 2013 Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock dealt with email communication with the LSE on behalf of her husband. The period alleged in the claim ends on 6 March 2013. Between 10 January and 6 March 2013 the defendant was attempting to move matters forward. On 1 March 2013 Mr Gosling became involved. He adopted a pragmatic approach to the process, assisted in moving it along not least in accepting that Professor Marnette-Piepenbrock could represent her husband. It was not until April 2013 that the claimant received a second version of the formal complaint from which redactions had been removed.

The claimant and his wife speak of their distress caused by the refusal of the LSE to allow his wife to act as the claimant’s “friend” within the Harassment Procedure which they correctly believed was permitted. Mr Linehan’s concerns regarding confidentiality are understandable, Mr Gosling’s view as to the appropriateness of a wife representing her husband in such matters is not without substance. Given the history, the imperative was to move the process forward. I accept that between 10 January and 6 March 2013 the defendant’s efforts in this regard were not assisted by the conduct of the claimant. The claimant’s evidence that he was too ill to deal with matters during this time, in particular to attend a meeting with Daniel Linehan or an assessment by an occupational therapist, is undermined by what is now known of his visit to India in early 2013 and to a lesser extent by the fact that he was able to communicate with lawyers regarding his complaint against the LSE.

Gwen O’Leary played a prominent part in the LSE’s handling of Miss D’s complaint, she would have relevant evidence to give but was not called as a witness. When the court enquired of Mr Warnock QC as to the reason for this, his reply was that she was no longer working at the LSE. Mr Gosling no longer works at the LSE. The court was not assisted by the failure of the defendant to call Gwen O’Leary.

Pursuant to section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. A person ought to know that the conduct amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct had this effect (section 1(2)). Certain courses of conduct are accepted, including if the person who pursued the course of conduct shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable (section 1(3)(c)). Harassment includes causing alarm or distress (section 7(2)) and a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions in relation to the complainant (section 7(3)(a)). A person may bring a civil claim for damages for, amongst other things, anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment (section 3).

Sections 1 to 7 of the 1997 Act apply to England and Wales only. It is accepted by the parties that the provisions do not apply to Miss D’s alleged actions in Boston and Seattle, they do apply to Miss D’s actions in sending emails from America to students, faculty members and other institutions in November 2012. The courts have considered the nature of conduct that, if repeated, could amount to harassment. In Majrowski v Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224 Lord Nicholls at [30] stated:

The claimant’s case is that Miss D, knowing what she allegedly did in Boston, maliciously made and disseminated a complaint which omitted the trigger incident, alleged conduct on the part of the claimant and in so doing embarked on a course of conduct which amounted to harassment.

In her complaint Miss D made no reference to the Boston incident upon which the claimant relies. She does detail events thereafter. Her account of the conversations in Boston may not accord with the claimant’s recollection, however her account of what took place in Seattle is not significantly disputed. Having considered the evidence relating to Miss D’s conduct, both before and during the America trip, I have concluded that whatever it is Miss D did when she opened the hotel door to the claimant in Boston she did not view her conduct in the same serious or inappropriate light as the claimant. This may well demonstrate a lack of insight on her part as to what is appropriate conduct but it would be in keeping with her previous behaviour in the department in respect of which no one at the LSE appears to have said anything to her. Given this conclusion I do not regard her omission in her complaint of any reference to this “incident” as sinister or of real significance.

The lengthy conversations between the claimant and Miss D in Boston were instigated and, in all probability, led by the claimant. The claimant has his own way of expressing himself. In an effort to deal with the matter sensitively I believe he failed to clearly identify to Miss D exactly what he thought was inappropriate or unprofessional in her behaviour. The length of the conversations is illustrative of the claimant’s mode of attempted dialogue. I find that Miss D’s understanding, or lack of it, of what was being said by the claimant is reflected in the Skype exchange which took place the next day.

By the end of the Boston part of the trip Miss D thought that her relationship with the claimant had ended or was in peril, which would have been upsetting to her. In this state she travels to Seattle, what follows in the early hours of 15 November served only to increase her distress. It is unsurprising that she contacted her mother who sought help to extract her daughter from what was a difficult and distressing situation. It is to the LSE’s credit that they responded swiftly to what was occurring in Seattle and ensured that Miss D was out of the hotel and able to travel to her mother in New York. In such circumstances it is not difficult to understand why it was Miss D sent her email of 18 November setting out her complaint. I am unable to find that the original complaint was malicious. It was substantially based on events in Seattle which are undisputed. It contained sufficient information of Boston events to show a course of conduct on the part of the claimant which, while well intentioned on his part, was inappropriate and unprofessional. Miss D should not have disseminated the original complaint but no one told her not to. When she was told she stopped.

In my judgment the trigger for Miss D’s complaint was the events in Seattle. In complaining about those events it cannot be said that she was acting in a malicious, oppressive or unacceptable manner. It was a legitimate complaint. Miss D should not have disseminated her complaint but she felt strongly about the way in which she had been treated by the claimant and was concerned that other young women could be subjected to the same treatment. She was putting others on notice of the claimant’s conduct, one reason being to prevent a reoccurrence. Given these facts, I am unable to find that Miss D’s conduct was oppressive and unacceptable. I do not find that such conduct would amount to harassment within the meaning of the 1997 Act.

In my judgment there were a series of failures on the part of the defendant to properly manage the complaint of Miss D, both before and within the Harassment Procedure, with the result that the process was unnecessarily protracted, its length was compounded by the failure to take any effective steps to stop Miss D disseminating her complaint to staff and students at the LSE at a time when the claimant was ignorant of it. Each of these failures represented a breach of the duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant.

Within two working days of 19 November the defendant should have attempted to ascertain from Miss D whether she wished to pursue a formal complaint. She should have been told that the matter was confidential and should not be disseminated. Had this step been taken much of the dissemination of Miss D’s complaint could have been prevented, this is linked to the claimant’s belief that colleagues were avoiding him. The Harassment Procedure states that the formal written complaint must be submitted to a member of the Anti-Harassment Panel no later than three months after the alleged incident. Given this timeframe, notwithstanding the series of identified delays on the part of the defendant, the submission by Miss D of her complaint on 10 December 2012 was within the timeframe of the Harassment Procedure. Once received and the procedure instituted, there should have been disclosure within a matter of days of the written complaint to the claimant. The disclosure should have been of the entirety of the complaint, the redactions were unnecessary. They related to the witness whose name had been given to the defendant by the claimant. The claimant should have been in receipt of the entirety of the written complaint by no later than 19 December 2012. The delay in serving the redacted complaint together with the further delay in serving the unredacted complaint represent breaches of the duty of care which the defendant owed to the claimant.

In addition to the above failures the claimant relies on the following in support of his allegation of breach of the common duty of care, namely:

The fact that the original complaint by Miss D was not shown to the claimant nor was he told the nature of the complaint until disclosure in March 2013;

Professor Bevan did not tell him of the nature of the complaint, he failed to inform the defendant what the claimant had told him of events in America when he knew the claimant’s account differed radically from Miss D’s;

Professor Bevan prohibited the claimant from attending the student graduation and party;

He declined to permit the claimant to recruit a replacement GTA;

Professor Estrin decided not to give the claimant the promised promotion to Professor of Practice and removed him from his post as the LSE’s representative on the Duke Board.

I do not regard the defendant’s action in not disclosing the original 18 November complaint by Miss D as being in breach of its duty of care to the claimant. The defendant was under its own duty to Miss D as an employee to ascertain if the complaint was to be made formal. Its culpable failure was the delay until 29 November to begin to ascertain this fact. This was compounded by its failure to stop Miss D disseminating the complaint. Professor Bevan is not to be held accountable for failing to ask the claimant about Miss D’s account, he had been advised by HR to ask the claimant what occurred in America and no more. I do not find that such advice was negligent. Professor Bevan’s concern as to the claimant’s attendance at the graduation and party at a time when Miss D and her parents would be present was not unreasonable. Moreover, it was an issue which was being resolved and would have been had the claimant not become ill. The LSE were not preventing the claimant recruiting a GTA, they were stating that such a person should not come from the student cohort which had included Miss D. I accept that such a stipulation restricted the claimant’s ability to find a GTA but the LSE had its own responsibilities to students and former students. Given the nature of Miss D’s complaints I do not find their stance to be unreasonable. By reason of my findings at paragraph 203 above Professor Estrin did not promise the claimant promotion to Professor of Practice. Any removal of the claimant as the LSE’s representative on the Duke Board is in my view insufficient to found breach of a duty of care.

The defendant’s Harassment Procedure was expressly made a term of the claimant’s contract. The relevant provisions of the procedure are set out in paragraph 153 above.

By reason of my findings as to breaches of the defendant’s duty of care any breaches of contract add little, if anything, to the claim of the claimant. The specific breach is of 9(d) the refusal to allow the claimant’s wife to act as his “friend”. The identity of the alleged harasser (5(a)) had occurred prior to the invoking of the procedure.

In Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76 the court summarised the applicable principles in respect of occupational stress claims resulting in injury, in particular psychiatric injury, at [43] as follows:

In Hartman v South Essex NHS Trust [2005] ICR 782 Scott Baker LJ at [2] stated:

In Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1512 Underhill LJ reviewed the authorities upon occupational stress and summarised the relevant principles as follows at [119]:

At [85] Underhill LJ cited with approval the authority of Attia v British Gas plc [1988] QB 304, Dillon LJ at page 312F-H as to the approach of the court to the issue of reasonable foreseeability:

At [84] Underhill LJ identified the “essential question in contract” as being whether the damage in question was of a kind which was “not unlikely” to result and that in tort it is whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable; the former test requiring a higher degree of likelihood of damage occurring than the latter.

The question for the court is whether the defendant’s action or inaction created a foreseeable risk of injury to the claimant against which it should have protected him? Foreseeability depends upon what the employer knows or ought reasonably to know about the individual employee. If a defendant knows of some vulnerability he may be obliged to take steps to guard against the risk of injury caused by that vulnerability which he would not otherwise be obliged to take. The vulnerability of a claimant will also be relevant when considering causation in its damages context by reason of the “egg-shell skull” rule, namely that if injury to a person was foreseeable without knowledge of vulnerability, then the fact that the consequences are greater because the person had a vulnerability is irrelevant, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the injury.

The nature of Miss D’s complaint was serious and had the potential to severely harm, possibly end, the claimant’s employment with the defendant. Mr Gosling accepted that such a complaint would cause stress for the person against whom it was alleged. Knowing of the stress and anxiety which such a complaint could cause it was incumbent on the defendant to proceed as expeditiously as possible with the complaint and for the reasons identified above this it failed to do. The delay was compounded by Miss D’s dissemination of the complaint and the defendant’s failure to promptly stop that dissemination. In my judgment it was foreseeable that the delay in November, when the claimant was becoming aware that others knew something which he did not, was a situation which was likely to cause stress and anxiety. On the claimant’s undisputed account it was on 12 December that he suffered the reaction which led to the development of psychiatric illness. There was subsequent delay by the defendant in its failure to serve the unredacted complaint, however the trigger event had occurred on 12 December. The subsequent delay and the failure to allow the claimant’s wife to act as his “friend” would aggravate the illness, on the claimant’s case it was not causative of it. The issue is whether these failures on the part of the defendant were such as to give rise to a reasonably foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury. As is clear from the authorities, foreseeability of stress is not enough.

It is the claimant’s case that at his interview with Professors Bevan and Estrin he disclosed the plagiarism matters at MIT and his resultant mental health. I do not accept his evidence on this issue. I prefer the evidence of Professors Bevan and Estrin, namely that if either or both of these matters had been raised they would have been investigated as the latter, in particular, was relevant to the claimant’s ability to carry out his duties. Their evidence made sense. As Professor Estrin stated, paragraph 104 above, they had to be satisfied that the claimant had the resilience to do the job. Aside from this, even on the claimant’s account, there was nothing to put the defendant on notice of any vulnerability on his part which would render him susceptible to psychiatric injury.

The claimant returned to the LSE from America on 19 November 2012. At his meeting with Professor Bevan on that day he appeared jet lagged and tired but there was no sign that he was suffering from mental ill-health. He left for a trip to India on 24 November and returned to the LSE on 3 December. When in India the claimant sent an email to Professor Bevan on 30 November in which he described “a rather productive week conducting research and lecturing to over 300 senior executives and LSE alums”. On 7 December the claimant emailed Professor Estrin in these terms:

There is nothing in the email exchanges during this period which begin to demonstrate that the issues relating to Miss D were affecting the claimant’s mental health.

The court was assisted by the detailed evidence, written and oral, of these expert witnesses. The fundamental difference between the two was that Professor Fahy found that the claimant developed a major depressive disorder with accompanying anxiety symptoms. He identified the trigger as being the serving of the complaint on 12 December together with the unnecessary delay on the part of the LSE, a failure to stop Miss D circulating the information, a failure to serve the claimant until two months later with the full content of the report coupled with the background of increased pressure because the claimant no longer had a teaching assistant, he did not know what the complaint actually contained and he thought other people might suspect him of sexual assault or even rape. The Professor accepted that the claimant was not clinically depressed prior to 12 December, he was described as lacking confidence and becoming stressed and apprehensive. His intense reaction to events is also reflective of his emotionally reactive personality. Professor Maden does not accept the diagnosis of a depressive episode, his diagnosis is that of an adjustment disorder. Critically he does not believe that the claimant’s sudden and extreme reaction to the stresses he faced was foreseeable. He accepted that delays would have caused apprehension and stress, as would the failure to contain Miss D’s complaints, but he was unequivocal that the development of the claimant’s alleged illness was not foreseeable.

As to foreseeability Professor Fahy, in writing and in the early part of his oral evidence, stated that the development of the illness was foreseeable. It was in cross-examination that Professor Fahy moved from his earlier view and accepted that to anyone unaware of the claimant’s previous episodes of collapse in response to the events at MIT his collapse on 12 December would have been unexpected and unexpectedly severe. In re-examination Mr Hogarth QC took up the point but in my view the Professor’s answer set out at paragraph 185 above reaffirms his shift of position, namely people might not anticipate or expect the severity of the reaction because they would not fully understand the claimant and would not have the information that would allow a psychiatrist to form the view that such events were foreseeable. Having made what appeared to be concessions in cross-examination and re-examination Professor Fahy, in answer to questions from the court, confirmed that what he had said as to foreseeability in his written reports had not been altered by anything he had heard in court when giving evidence. Throughout his evidence Professor Fahy impressed as an informed, fair and balanced witness. In my view his response to the questions in cross-examination and in re-examination upon the issue of foreseeability was a reflection of this experienced psychiatrist’s fairness and should be viewed in that context. By reason of the shift in position I do not consider the court to be bound by the Professor’s original view that the claimant’s reaction was foreseeable. In any event it is for the court assessing all the evidence to make its own judgment as to the foreseeability of the development of psychiatric illness.

Professor Fahy, in reaching his conclusion that the claimant suffered a depressive illness, took full account of the views of treating clinicians and accorded them respect. It appeared to the court that Professor Maden, in reaching his conclusion that the claimant had suffered an adjustment disorder, did not accord to the treating doctors the understanding or respect demonstrated by Professor Fahy. In my judgment the evidence of Professor Fahy was scrupulous in its fairness and balance in a manner in which the evidence of Professor Maden, on occasion, was not. I preferred the evidence of Professor Fahy as to the illness suffered by the claimant, not only because I thought him the fairer witness but because his view accorded with those who were seeing and treating the claimant from December 2012 onwards.

I do not find that the development of the claimant’s depressive illness should have been reasonably foreseen by the defendant. Prior to November 2012 the LSE had no information that would have put them on notice of a vulnerability on the part of the claimant to mental ill-health. I accept that the events at the LSE from 19 November onwards would have caused foreseeable stress and anxiety to the claimant. I do not accept that the nature of the breaches were of themselves sufficient to create a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury. Further, there is nothing in the claimant’s conduct prior to his reaction on the night of 12 December which provides any evidential basis for finding that the defendant should have foreseen such a reaction, still less the development of the depressive illness. On the contrary, the claimant was travelling to India for what appears to have been a successful trip. He was communicating with one of the Heads of Department regarding his future work, he was getting on with the job. I find that the severity of the claimant’s reaction on 12 December was a reflection of his personality. The defendant had no relevant information as to the claimant’s personality or past medical history which would have rendered the development of the claimant’s illness reasonably foreseeable. Accordingly, this claim fails, there is to be judgment for the defendant.