Ted had employed a former student, known only as ‘Miss D’ in a High Court judgement reported this week, as his graduate teaching assistant (GTA) in the LSE’s Department of Management.
He says it became clear she had a crush on him; she dressed provocatively, behaved suggestively and became ever more obsessed with him until one evening at a hotel suite during a work trip to the U.S. in 2012, she appeared before him in a state of undress. Ted claims he rejected her advances sensitively.
When the work trip was over, Miss D lodged a complaint against Ted to the LSE, and her portrayal of his behaviour was somewhat different. She claimed that during their trip Ted hadn’t been the consummate professional he claimed.
There were conversations, she said, during which he commented that she had a ‘beautiful body’, described her as ‘damaged’ and ‘unstable’, and referred to her as a liar who used ‘feminine behaviours to get control over men’. And when, during an overnight meeting in a hotel room, she burst into tears out of fear and exhaustion, she claims Ted ‘mocked me horrifically, miming a crying baby’.
After lodging her complaint, she circulated it among others in her department. Ted , who lives in Oxford with his wife Sophie Marnette, 49, a professor of medieval French studies at Oxford University, and their 15-year-old privately educated son, became distressed due to the level with which the allegations had tarnished his reputation.
Ms Justice Nicola Davies in court was critical of a decision by the academic to invite the young lady to Bouston in Seattle November 2012, where he was to speak to former LSE students and attend a summit of the International Institute for Strategic Leadership (IISL), which he founded. She said: ‘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 America trip.’
Yet Ted agreed to meet at her hotel suite on the morning of November 12 where, he says, she opened the door wearing a top which did not cover her ‘private parts’. Shocked, he took Miss D — who has not commented on this alleged incident — to a Boston park for three hours of intense discussions as to why she shouldn’t behave inappropriately. Whether it was necessary to remonstrate with her for so long is a matter of opinion.
.‘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 America trip.’
Yet Ted agreed to meet at her hotel suite on the morning of November 12 where, he says, she opened the door wearing a top which did not cover her ‘private parts’. Shocked, he took Miss D — who has not commented on this alleged incident — to a Boston park for three hours of intense discussions as to why she shouldn’t behave inappropriately. Whether it was necessary to remonstrate with her for so long is a matter of opinion.
A subsequent internal investigation found the complaint against him ‘not proven’ and the LSE’s director apologised for its handling of the case. But Ted’s anger towards his former employer, and the depression he developed as a result of his ordeal, continued to fester.
The case against LSE eventually failed. Andrew Warnock KC and Laura Johnson KC acted for the LSE in that trial, s and successfully defended a £4.5m claim arising out of the LSE’s handling of a complaint about Dr Piepenbrock. The trial attracted press reports published in the Daily Mail in October 2018.
In 2019, Dr Piepenbrock brought a claim for defamation against the Daily Mail’s publisher, Associated News Limited (“ANL”) and the LSE. He alleged that the LSE was legally responsible for the words of an anonymous source quoted in the article. He failed to serve proceedings in time and as a result that claim was not allowed to proceed. A costs order was made in favour of ANL and LSE in those proceedings that has still not been paid.
Months later, an internal investigation found the complaint against him ‘not proven’ and the LSE’s director apologised for its handling of the case. But Ted’s anger towards his former employer, and the depression he developed as a consequence of his experience got worse.
Further Proceedings
In 2022, Dr Piepenbrock brought further proceedings against the LSE and ANL arising out of the publication of the articles, claiming compensation for personal injury caused by the damage to his reputation, breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“PHA”), discrimination pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”), violation of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) and various data protection breaches.
The LSE and ANL both applied to strike out the claims, and after a three day hearing Heather Williams J handed down judgement on 30 September 2022.
The claims in negligence, under the PHA, the EQA and the HRA were struck out, in addition to a number of the data protection claims. The claims in negligence, under the EQA and the HRA were certified as being wholly without merit. The only outstanding aspect of the claim relates to three subject access requests (SARs) made by the claimant in 2019, 2020 and 2021.
The judge concluded that she was unable to determine whether or not an arguable claim could exist in relation to this very limited aspect of the data protection claim because the pleading was not coherent. This remaining part of the claim has been stayed pending payment of the outstanding costs of the 2020 claim. Laura was assisted in the case by Henk Soede and instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP.