A solicitor accused of improperly threatening legal proceedings against a GP practice and an NHS agency during the pandemic believed he was ‘protecting the health of people at risk of harm from the vaccines’.
The allegations against Philip Julian Paul Hyland, an employment lawyer and founder of Lincolnshire firm PJH Law, centre on correspondence sent in December 2021 to a GP practice on behalf of one client and to the chair of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on behalf of three clients. Hyland is said to have improperly threatened legal proceedings when there was no proper basis for the claims.
In correspondence to the GP practice, Hyland, admitted in 1998, sought a Covid-19 exemption certificate to allow ‘Client A’ to travel without needing to self-isolate in accordance with restrictions at the time.
Correspondence to the chair of the MHRA is alleged to have improperly threated legal proceedings over the vaccines. The relief sought included withdrawal of the vaccines, suspending Covid testing and a live televised Christmas broadcast announcing the decision to do so.
Peter Fields, for Hyland, made an application for no case to answer which was refused by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Fields said: ‘These two letters, both allegation one and two, are letters before action. They are not claims, they do not contain statements of truth.
‘In the context of what Mr Hyland wrote he put forward facts of legal submissions and he did that according to the civil procedure rules as he was required to do. There is no rule that Mr Hyland has to balance his view [in a letter before action].’
He added: ‘[Hyland] was concerned about the health of everybody affected by the vaccine. His belief was that by writing this letter he was protecting the health of people who risked harm from the vaccine. All I am asking is if [the SRA] took into account whether Mr Hyland’s view was reasonably held.'
Referring to the MHRA letter, Fields said: ‘[Hyland] had a proper legal or factual basis for his claim. Mr Hyland was instructed by three clients who wanted him to write that letter. I am not saying the allegations were right, they do not have to be, all I am submitting is he has a reasonable belief.’
He added: ‘I am not suggesting for a moment that the scientific investigation would prove Mr Hyland right [but] he believed that he was and that is my submission.’
Referring to the letter sent to the GP practice, Fields said Hyland was acting on his client’s instructions and ‘was not acting like a hired gun’ as the Solicitors Regulation Authority suggested.
In his own evidence, Hyland said: ‘I am not here to say I am right, I am here to say this is my view and my view was that the regulations instructed certain requirements but what the regulations did not do was fundamentally change legal rights.
‘My instruction was to write the letter [to the GP practice]. Out view was that they should not be following the guidance. It went beyond special conditions, it was about protected beliefs as well.'
When asked ‘why the anger’ in his letter to the GP practice, Hyland replied: ‘I do not think there is any anger. I think it is more frustration. This has to be contextualised, we [had] written various other letters and not received responses.’
The hearing continues.
