International Institute for Strategic Leadership


Sexual Harassment at the LSE asks questions of #MeToo

and resulted in the largest lawsuits in Higher Education


High Court finds LSE in Breach of Duty of Care and in Breach of Contract

in the Largest Lawsuits in the History of Higher Education

High Court Judgment:

“My view is that those [LSE staff] who were purporting to deal with the matter were passing the buck, one to the other, disclaiming any responsibility for decisive action.

“In my judgment there were a series of failures on the part of the defendant to properly manage... Miss D. Each of these failures represented a breach of the duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant.”

Dr Theodore Piepenbrock:

“My family and I are pleased with the outcome of this landmark High Court trial. The judgment that the LSE was found to be in multiple breaches of its duty of care as well as in breach of contract is entirely unsurprising as Lord Chief Justice Woolf’s high-profile LSE ethics investigation revealed serious ethics, management and governance failures at the LSE.  The High Court’s damning indictment of the LSE is crucial to litigating my multi-million pound Employment Tribunal case against the LSE.”

Lord Chief Justice Woolf:

“A disconcerting number of failures in communication and governance within the LSE.”

“The mistakes and errors of judgment go beyond those that could be expected from an institution of the LSE’s distinction.”

“The pattern is such that I am driven to the conclusion that there were shortcoming in the governance structure and management at the LSE.”

“It falls down on the first hurdle in not having an Ethics Code, adopted by the institution, which sets out clearly the values, principles and procedures which everyone associated with the LSE ought to comply.  The establishment and embedding of this code is the highest priority.”

“The onslaught undoubted seriously damaged the LSE’s reputation.       It caused significant distress to staff, students & academics at the LSE.”

Press Coverage

(click on logos)


Appeal filed in the Largest Lawsuits in the History of Higher Education

with the UK’s leading female QC barrister

She’s outstanding and not to be messed with.  She doesn’t take prisoners.”

“A ferocious advocate.

“She has great depth of knowledge and an incredible court presence.”

Hugely experienced and a tough litigator.”

“A very tenacious barrister, who is prepared to run a difficult argument and take a calculated risk.”

She is extraordinarily brave, will not be bullied.”

“A powerful advocate, who takes no prisoners.”

A committed and passionate lawyer.”

“She is outstanding, and certainly at the very top of her game on high-value cases.”

“Someone you would want on your side.”

“Fights ferociously for her clients.”

“A first choice for high value, complex claims.”

A brave barrister when the going gets tough, she can be a bit of a rottweiler.”

The UK’s leading personal injury barrister set, 39 Essex Chambers, will be leading the landmark appeal in the largest lawsuits in the history of Higher Education.  The LSE will be represented by a barrister set which is three bands lower in the Legal 500 ranking.

The appeal will be led by the UK’s leading female QC barrister in this space.  The LSE will be represented by a barrister in a lower band in Chambers and Partners ranking.


High Court finds Obsessive LSE Stalker was Infatuated with

Award-winning Internationally Renowned Economist

High Court Judgment:

“It is now apparent that she [Miss D] had become infatuated with the claimant... showing ‘dog-like devotion’.”

“...Miss D’s style of dress was inappropriate, she would often be in short skirts and low-cut tops. ...Miss D was not dressing appropriately to represent the LSE.”

“...Miss D’s ‘obsessive’ behaviour, her dress and how she acted towards the claimant...”

“...behaviour bizarre...”

“Miss D had developed something of an infatuation for the claimant.”

“...Miss D did behave in a provocative, even sexually provocative manner towards the claimant, it would not be inconsistent with her previous behaviour at the LSE.”

“I accept that Miss D’s conduct... caused the claimant considerable concern.”

“There is nothing in the evidence before the court to suggest that the claimant positively encouraged any behaviour or advances by Miss D...”

Dr Theodore Piepenbrock:

“I am an economist, not an escort.  The LSE must accept the decisions of serious academics (who are also happily-married parents) to reject unwanted sexual advances and sexual harassment in the workplace.”

“Miss D”, the LSE stalker who exposed herself


High Court finds that the Stalker’s Harassment was not “Unacceptable”

and that the consequences were not “Foreseeable”

High Court Judgment:

“I have concluded that whatever it is Miss D did... she did not view her conduct in the same serious or inappropriate light as the Claimant.  This may well demonstrate a lack of insight on her part as to what is appropriate conduct but it would be in keeping with her previous behaviour... in respect of which no one at the LSE appears to have said anything to her.   Given this conclusion I do not regard her [actions] as sinister or of real significance.”

“Miss D should not have disseminated [her allegations throughout the LSE and around the world] but no one told her not to.”

“... it can not be said that she [the stalker] was acting in a malicious, oppressive or unacceptable manner.  I am unable to find that Miss D’s conduct was oppressive and unacceptable.  I do not find that such conduct would amount to harassment...”

“I accept that the events at the LSE... would have caused foreseeable stress and anxiety to the claimant.  I do not accept that the nature of the breaches were of themselves sufficient to create a foreseeable risk of [significant harm].”

Dr Theodore Piepenbrock:

“My top-ranked legal team will make an appeal to demonstrate that the LSE stalker’s actions were clearly oppressive and unacceptable and that the LSE’s response to these actions caused foreseeable harm.”

In the #MeToo era, when sexual harassment/abuse against women is finally beginning to be rightfully addressed, how do we balance the needs to protect both women and men?  I hope my story helps in some small way to contribute to a sensible debate, where well-intentioned people work together to solve an important issue of our time.”

In spite of the High Court judgment that the LSE stalker was obsessed and infatuated with the Claimant, and that the LSE was in multiple breaches of its duty of care toward the Claimant and in breach of contract in how it handled the stalker, the Judge made the surprising finding that the stalker’s gross sexual misconduct and sexual harassment and subsequent false and malicious defamation campaign against the innocent Claimant did not constitute harassment under the law.

In addition, in spite of the High Court judgment that the LSE stalker’s behaviour (and the LSE’s response to it) caused the Claimant considerable concern, and that it foreseeably caused stress and anxiety, it was not judged to have caused a foreseeable risk of significant harm to the Claimant.

Building world-class global ecosystems of

knowledge and courage.


Joanne Hay, senior LSE administrator, “wretched drunken nightmare” & spurned perpetrator of sexual assault, illegally defamed the Claimant.

Ms Hay, who was publicly-humiliated in the High Court trial, harbours a malicious vendetta against the innocent Dr Piepenbrock for rejecting her drunken sexual advance at the LSE, and illegally defamed him in the media.

Click here for more on this breaking news.