Philip Julian Paul Hyland
Solicitor
005891

Decision - Prosecution

Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Outcome date: 10 August 2023

Published date: 12 June 2024

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: PJH Law

Address(es): 18a Maiden Lane, Stamford, Lincolnshire PE9 2AZ

Firm ID: 571808

Firm or organisation at date of publication

Name: PJH Law Solicitors LLP

Address(es): 18a Maiden Lane, Stamford, Lincolnshire PE9 2AZ

Firm ID: 8000051

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Reasons/basis

This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that while working as a solicitor at PJH Law, Mr Hyland: 

1. Sent correspondence on 3 and 11 December 2021 to a 'Health Centre' which improperly threatened legal proceedings, in that: 

1.1. The correspondence sought a form exempting Client A from a COVID-19 vaccine to which Mr Hyland knew or believed Client A was not entitled.

1.2 In default of that request, it threatened litigation where there was no proper legal basis for the claim.

1.3 The correspondence improperly aimed to intimidate a lay party in that: 

1.3.1 It was excessively legalistic;

1.3.2 It was abusive, intimidating and aggressive in tone and language. 

1.4 The correspondence sought to invoke the framework of a legal claim, and Mr Hyland's status and a role of a solicitor, to lend unjustified weight to Client A's meritless request. 

2. Sent a letter to the Chair of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ('MHRA') dated 17 December 2021 which improperly threatened legal proceedings in that it: 

2.1 Threatened litigation where there was no proper factual or legal basis for the claim.

2.2 Made allegations of bad faith on the part of public officials, without proper foundation.

2.3 Sought forms of relief which were unrelated to, and disproportionate to, the grievances of his clients.

2.4 Was for the ulterior purpose of promoting a campaign against the government's public health measures. 

The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.