St Philips Chambers and barrister Wendy Miller KC have formally declined a data protection request from Lee Thompson, founder of The Cummins Accountability Project (TCAP), concerning a contested case summary published on the chambers’ website.
Mr Thompson’s original complaint, sent on 7 June 2025, requested the removal of a case summary he alleges misrepresents the legal status of an ongoing Employment Appeal Tribunal matter (EA-2024-001327-RS) and discloses sensitive personal data without consent.
The request invoked data rights under UK GDPR Articles 15 (access) and 17 (erasure). In response, St Philips Chambers issued a refusal on 13 June 2025, categorising the request as “manifestly unfounded” and asserting it was part of a “pattern of conduct” motivated by personal grievance.
TCAP has now published the full email chain below in the interests of transparency:
Original Email from Lee Thompson (7 June 2025)
From: Lee Thompson t***********@********et.com
To: Wendy Miller w******@st-philips.com; Employment & PI employment&**@********ps.com
Sent: 07 June 2025 22:11
Subject: Request for Immediate Removal of Case Summary — Data Protection and Prejudice ConcernsDear St Philips Chambers,
I am writing in relation to the case summary recently published on your website concerning “T v C”, referencing representation by Wendy Miller. I am the claimant in that case, and I note the content published raises significant concerns around data protection, prejudice, and mischaracterisation.
The post:
- Identifies me by implication through details already public (e.g. via associated public litigation and follow-on proceedings)
- Discloses special category personal data, including references to mental illness and the use of the Advocates Gateway
- Presents the outcome as final (“dismissal of all allegations”), despite a live appeal currently pending before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EA-2024-001327-RS)
I did not consent to any public reference to this case. The summary misrepresents the legal position by implying finality and discloses personal data in breach of UK GDPR Article 9. It may also undermine my appeal and cause reputational damage.
I therefore request:
- Immediate removal of the case summary from your website
- Written confirmation of removal and any further internal use of this data
- Disclosure of how and on what lawful basis this information was processed and published (under Article 15 UK GDPR)
Should this not be resolved promptly, I will escalate the matter to the Bar Standards Board and the Information Commissioner’s Office. I am also considering taking advice on injunctive or declaratory relief.
I expect a response within 7 days.
Yours sincerely,
Lee Thompson
Response from St Philips Chambers (13 June 2025)
From: Employment & PI employment&**@********ps.com
Sent: 13 June 2025 12:36
Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Removal of Case Summary — Data Protection and Prejudice ConcernsDear Mr Thompson,
We are responding to your Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) dated 5th June 2025 (at 21:16 and 21:20), and your erasure request dated 7th June 2025 concerning material published on the St Philips website.
We do not believe that Ms Miller is under an obligation to provide you with the information you requested or that the right to erasure applies in this case. However, our principal reason for not complying with your requests in this instance, is that they are manifestly unfounded.
The requests appear to form part of a pattern of conduct that we consider to be intended more to pursue personal grievances than to exercise data protection rights appropriately.
Given the above, please be advised that St Philips Chambers and Miss Miller will not be engaging in further correspondence with you on this matter, and we ask you to refrain from contacting Miss Miller by using her email address in the future.
You have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if you believe our response is not in accordance with the UK GDPR. You also have the right to seek a judicial remedy should you wish to enforce your rights under data protection law.
Kind regards,
St Philips Chambers
Follow-up Response from Lee Thompson (18 June 2025)
Subject: Clarification Requested on “Manifestly Unfounded” Classification and Next Steps
Dear St Philips Chambers,
Thank you for your response of 13 June 2025. I note you consider my DSAR “manifestly unfounded” but have not provided specific evidence or rationale as required under UK GDPR and ICO guidance. I wish to clarify and resolve this appropriately.
Request for justification
Under ICO guidance, a request is only “manifestly unfounded” if it is obvious or abusive, and the controller must have clear evidence to support that conclusion. Please explain with reference to objective factors why my request meets this threshold. For example:
- What evidence shows I have no intention to exercise my rights?
- How is this request clearly malicious or solely intended to harass?
- Which parts of my request do you consider disproportionate or excessive, and why, in concrete terms?
Scope clarification
If the breadth of my original request presents difficulties, I am willing to narrow its scope. For instance, please indicate if providing a date range, limiting to specific categories of communications (e.g., emails between certain dates or regarding particular matters), or redacting third-party personal data would address your concerns. ICO guidance states controllers should engage with requesters to refine requests rather than refuse outright.Legal basis and exemptions
If you rely on any exemptions (e.g., legal professional privilege), please specify which exemptions apply to which documents, and provide a schedule identifying withheld material. A bare assertion of “manifestly unfounded” is insufficient without detailed grounds and evidence.Continuation of time limit
As per ICO guidance, the one-month response period continues while clarification is sought, but clarification should not be used as an undue delay tactic. Please confirm receipt of this message and indicate a reasonable timeframe for your detailed justification or suggestions to refine scope.Next steps
If I do not receive substantiated reasons or a constructive proposal to narrow the request within 14 days, I will consider lodging a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office, as is my right under UK GDPR. I prefer to resolve this directly and trust you will address this in line with ICO requirements.I remain committed to exercising my data protection rights in good faith. Please respond with the specifics requested so we can proceed appropriately.
Kind regards,
Lee Thompson
Mr Thompson has set a deadline of 27 June 2025 for a full response. If none is forthcoming, a formal complaint to the ICO and potentially the Bar Standards Board will follow. St Philips Chambers has not issued any further comment at the time of publication.
For transparency, TCAP has made this correspondence available to the public as part of its ongoing reporting on legal process integrity and data protection rights. St Philips Chambers has stated it will not engage in further correspondence. However, should any response be issued via formal or public channels, it will be published in full in the interests of fairness.