While opera lovers have been enjoying in blissful sunshine a season of high operatic drama in the prestigious grounds of Glyndebourne in the Sussex countryside, another very different drama has been unfolding quietly inside the organisation itself.

Edward Romain, aged 39, a well-qualified fundraiser and writer whose previous roles included raising money for the Yehudi Menuhin music school, was appointed as a senior fundraiser for Glyndebourne, which relies on high-value donor support to sustain its world-class productions.

He began on a probationary period. Towards the end of that period, in October 2023, he tried to understand how earlier probationers had fared, to improve his own chances of securing a permanent role. In doing so, he came across a file containing previous probation reviews. The file was not password protected and included sensitive personal information, including medical histories.

Alarmed that such information was accessible to staff via an unsecured file, Romain reported the issue to management — raising what he believed to be a serious data protection failure — and effectively becoming a whistleblower.

However, Glyndebourne’s version of events, submitted in legal papers now before the court, tells a very different story.

They state:

“On or around October 2023 the Claimant accessed and read several confidential Probation Review Forms which he found in an unsecure file created by his line manager. The Claimant took screenshots of these Probation Review Forms and sent them to the Defendant’s HR and Head of Governance thereby procuring and committing a data breach. The Claimant subsequently sent repeated emails that were entirely inappropriate in tone and appeared to be blackmailing the Defendant into bringing his probation period to an end and using the alleged data breach as leverage to pass his probation.”

In short, Romain was accused of committing a data breach — rather than reporting one. Glyndebourne dismissed him for “gross misconduct.”

The matter was resolved by a confidential agreement under which Romain resigned, received a financial settlement, and was promised a reference. The agreement, according to court papers, included standard confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses. It also discouraged further escalation, including reporting the breach to the Information Commissioner.

The existence of the incident remained unknown until the High Court proceedings brought it into the open.

All appeared quiet until the following year, when Romain applied for a fundraising position at Bede’s Senior School in Upper Dicker, East Sussex. According to documents filed in court, he was offered the job in April 2024 — but the offer was then revoked. Romain alleges that someone from Glyndebourne contacted the school in breach of the settlement. Glyndebourne denies this.

The school’s letter stated:

“This decision has been made based on the checks that were carried out and the references we received during the final stages of our hiring process being unsatisfactory.”

At that point, Romain took legal action against both Glyndebourne Productions Ltd and Loch Employment Law Ltd, the firm that had drafted the original settlement on Glyndebourne’s behalf. He issued proceedings in the County Court through the Civil National Business Centre.

The litigation followed Glyndebourne’s alleged failure to respond to data subject access requests — with only 34 out of an estimated 500 documents released, according to Romain. When neither Glyndebourne nor Loch responded to the initial claim, their defences were struck out in January 2024. Romain applied for default judgment.

Then things took an unusual turn.

The case was, without his agreement, transferred to Worthing County Court. There, District Judge Andrew Worthley declined to recognise the earlier strike-out, stating there had been no valid default. He also rebuked Romain for continuing to pursue the matter.

Romain appealed to the Circuit Bench. His appeal was dismissed by HHJ Jonathan Simpkiss, the senior circuit judge in Sussex, who held that the claim was without merit.

In May, at a further hearing before Judge Robin Penfold, some of Romain’s claims were struck out and the case was concluded.

But fresh controversy followed. After the hearing, Romain received what appeared to be court directions from Loch Employment Law — specifically from Joe Milner, a partner in the firm. These were contained in a Word document not issued by the court, and which bore no seal, signature, or court markings.

According to Romain, the unsealed document materially differed from the official sealed order. He says it was then sent to HHJ Simpkiss with a request for a General Civil Restraint Order — despite no formal application appearing to have been made at that time.

When the actual sealed order arrived days later, it did not match the earlier version. The court ultimately issued a three-year General Civil Restraint Order against Romain, on the basis that certain applications made were held to be totally without merit — a decision Romain strongly contests.

Undeterred, Romain launched fresh proceedings in the High Court, where the matter is now before a different judge. He is seeking £350,000 in damages, as well as aggravated or exemplary damages — typically reserved for particularly serious or malicious conduct. He is also seeking recovery of legal costs.

The claim names both Glyndebourne and Loch Employment Law as defendants and includes allegations of malicious falsehood, defamation, breach of contract, and abuse of the court process. Romain maintains that the allegations made against him were false, and repeated without proper basis or legal justification.

Now acting as a litigant in person, Romain says the process has taken a major toll on his life and health. He has moved in with his uncle, David Grossman, and is no longer working.

Grossman wrote in a letter to the court:

“I write this not as a legal expert, but as someone who has stood by and watched my nephew endure something that has gone far beyond a legal dispute. Over the course of this case, I have seen the toll it has taken on him and us as a family — not just financially, but emotionally, physically, and mentally.
What began as a breach of agreement has become something far deeper: a prolonged and destabilising ordeal that has cost him years of peace, stability, and health.”

The Solicitors Regulation Authority declined to take regulatory action against Loch following a referral containing evidence — including the Word document. However, Joe Milner stepped down as a director of the firm in late July. He was ” not available” when I tried to contact him.

Whatever happens next, Romain has established Blind Justice CIC, a community interest company aiming to support others who find themselves failed by the legal system.

“The matter is now before the High Court. I have confidence in the integrity of that process,” he said.

Given the wide readership of this site, and the striking issues raised — from data protection to judicial process — it is likely Romain will receive support from others who believe their own whistleblowing or access to justice has been unfairly shut down.

Glyndebourne has previously declined to comment about the saga when approached by journalists and bloggers. Unfortunately apart from the prestigious New York site of Law 360, none of the other media have written about this case, including to my surprise, Private Eye.

PAY PAL NEW DONATE BUTTON to Westminster Confidential below

https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=UQQ5RZFCRJK54