On 23 March 2026, the Commercial Court refused to strike out claims in unlawful means conspiracy and procuring breach of contract brought by Mr Paul Girvan against British Telecommunications Plc (BT).
Mr Girvan’s claims, which are also advanced against Paralaw UK Ltd, concern a system (known as BT Property Search or ‘BTPS’) which he designed and operated, and which provided BT with advance notice of construction projects that would affect its extensive network of underground tunnels and complexes. The system, which was provided by Mr Girvan’s company, PGL, to Paralaw, and then on to BT, allowed BT to enter into Asset Protection Agreements with developers whose development proposals threatened BT’s underground assets. The developer would pay for any Asset Purchase Agreement concluded and in return would be given information about the location of the relevant asset, agree not to damage it, and indemnify BT in respect of any damage done. PGL would receive payment from Paralaw in respect of work done on each search, and in respect of each Asset Purchase Agreement concluded.
Mr Girvan now claims that, in breach of contract, in 2018 Paralaw cut PGL out of the operation of BTPS, pursuant to an unlawful means conspiracy with BT. He also claims that BT procured or induced Paralaw's breach of contract. Mr Girvan claims that, as a result, he lost profits, currently estimated at in excess of £85m.
On 23 March 2026, BT sought to strike out the entirety of the proceedings against it, on the basis that Mr Girvan was not properly the assignee of Paul Girvan Limited’s claims against BT. Mr Justice Robin Knowles observed that “strike out was most unlikely in a case of this sort”, declined to strike out Mr Girvan’s claims against BT, and ordered instead that Paul Girvan Limited should be joined to the proceedings as third Defendant.
Joe Johnson acted for Mr Girvan, pro bono through Advocate.