loch employment law | Westminster Confidential

Joe Milner ex Loch Employment Law now Brightstar Law Ltd

Three months after this blog first reported (see here) unusual conduct by a leading employment law firm, public records reveal just how far that conduct went — and how the courts may have got it very wrong.

High Court records confirm that on 8 October 2025, Loch Employment Law Ltd launched a breach of contract claim (Case No. BL-2025-001254) against a group of former employees and entities, including a newly formed legal outfit called Brightstar Law Ltd.

Among the seven named defendants is Joe Milner, formerly a director of Loch Employment Law and Claudia Yorath former Group People Director for Loch Group.

Strikingly, Milner and Brightstar have fired back. Part 20 counterclaims have been filed not just against Loch Employment Law, but against its parent company Loch Associates Group Ltd, and even against Pamela Loch, the firm’s founder, in her personal capacity.

The public filings suggest not a polite departure — but a full-blown legal and commercial rupture.

The Timeline That Should Have Stopped Everything

Official records from Companies House show that Milner’s directorship at Loch Employment Law ended on 24 July 2025. The company filed the required TM01 termination form the very next day.

And yet — a full 35 days later, on 28 August 2025, a legal document known as an N260 Statement of Costs was filed with Milner’s signature, identifying him as “Partner” of Loch Law.

That same day, a strike-out application brought in Loch Law’s name was allowed by the High Court. Costs were awarded against the claimant. The judge, Master Eastman, made no reference in his ruling to the fact that the signatory had no authority to act on behalf of the firm.

Four days later, on 1 September 2025, Milner became a director of Brightstar Law Ltd — a direct competitor.

A Warning Ignored

What makes this situation particularly troubling is that the issue was flagged to the court in advance.

According to public filings, the claimant — who had no legal representation — had:

Submitted evidence from Companies House showing Milner’s removal
Filed detailed submissions alleging that Milner’s filings were unauthorised
Cited Yonge v Toynbee [1910], a century-old case establishing that documents filed by solicitors without authority are void
Provided metadata analysis suggesting that at least one signature may have been reused from unrelated proceedings.

Despite these warnings, the strike-out application was allowed to proceed. The claimant’s submissions appear to have been entirely disregarded. There is no indication that the court considered the authority of the solicitor filing the costs claim — or whether the underlying application was even valid.

The Legal Consequence: A Void Strike-Out?

Lawyers consulted about the case (who are not connected to the parties) note that if Milner lacked authority, the strike-out application was not merely procedurally defective — it was void.

It is a foundational principle of English law that someone without standing or instructions cannot bind a firm. If the court had taken proper account of this, the claim might never have been struck out — and costs might never have been awarded.

That it was allowed to proceed suggests a serious failure to scrutinise who was behind the filings.

Vindicated — But at What Cost?

The claimant, Edward Romain, who now runs Blind Justice, a community interest company supporting litigants in person, appears to have been correct in every material respect, Milner had no authority and the strike application should not have been entertained.

Yet the cost order remains. The ruling stands.

In the view of legal observers, this raises a deeper question: How many other strike-outs, cost rulings or orders are being granted without the court verifying the authority of the legal representative?

When professional parties operate in bad faith — or when firms collapse mid-case — the risks to access to justice are real. The consequences fall heaviest on litigants without lawyers.

A Case That’s Still Unfolding

The High Court dispute — Loch Employment Law Ltd v Brightstar Ltd & Ors (BL-2025-001254) — remains live as of 2 December 2025.

Whether regulators or courts will revisit the earlier strike-out ruling is unclear. But one thing is certain: a litigant was right, and the system failed to listen.

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00

£10.00

£20.00

£5.00

£15.00

£100.00

£5.00

£15.00

£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

Your contribution is appreciated.

Donate Donate monthly Donate yearly

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.

Joe Milner, former director of Loch Employment Law, who acted for Glyndebourne

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.