Does an undertaking given under threat of proceedings being issued, prevent disclosure of wrongdoing and matters in the public interest?
My employment at ConvaTec
I worked for ConvaTec between 1989 and 2000. At the time ConvaTec was a division of Bristol-Myers Squibb.
During my employment I raised concerns about xxxxxxxx Content Restricted by Undertaking xxxxxxxxxx to both ConvaTec and the Bristol-Myers Squibb Ombudsman.
At one point I made a written comment about machinery in my department which included a reference to "blowing up" a machine. My comment was intended xxxxxxx Content Restricted by Undertaking xxxxxx. I did not intend it as a threat to commit an act of terrorism.
I subsequently became concerned that this comment, together with my criticism of the company and an email I sent to a senior Bristol-Myers Squibb executive questioning the reasons being given for a restructuring, had resulted in matters being reported to the authorities.
I have never been a terrorist and have never knowingly engaged in terrorism.
Nevertheless, I came to believe that my employment dispute had developed into something considerably more serious.
Chronology
1989, I went to work at ConvaTec, Unit 33, Deeside, as a technician, maintaining packaging machines. I was recruited following a spell as a contractor.
1998/1999, ConvaTec, Unit 33, the Multivac blister-forming machine was superseded. Before this happened, I believe ConvaTec knew about an issue regarding the machine.
I left ConvaTec in December 2000, following a cost-cutting restructuring. I received an email from Leon de Costa. My post xxxxxxx Content Restricted by Undertaking xxxxxxxx.
In early 2001 I consulted Eversheds solicitors, Manchester. As I recall they charged me for copying all my paperwork in relation to my employment. They advised me I didn’t have a case for constructive dismissal against ConvaTec.
I took ConvaTec to an employment tribunal representing myself. I lost the case.
In late 2001, I worked at West Kirby Grammar School for Girls as an IT technician. At no time was I challenged about my security status.
November 2001, Thomas J Pickard, Deputy Director, retires from FBI.
I was subjected to severe gaslighting on a trip to Barbados. Mental health problems followed.
January 2002, Thomas J Pickard joins Bristol-Myers Squibb.
In 2002, I published legalrights.co.uk. Eversheds represented ConvaTec against me. Under threat of legal action, I signed an undertaking prepared by Eversheds on ConvaTec’s instruction to take down the website.
Again in 2002, I intended to provide information to the Food and Drug Administration, the undertaking prevented me from doing so.
About 2003 I wrote to the Bristol-Myers Squibb Ombudsman. The Ombudsman denied having had any contact from me, but in an email, told me she considered all matters relating to my employment closed, following the determination of the UK employment tribunal and me signing the undertaking. I wasn’t happy but my contract of employment was with ConvaTec, not Bristol-Myers Squibb.
August 2008, Bristol-Myers Squibb disposed of ConvaTec to Nordic Capital and Avista Capital Partners.
2011, I approached ConvaTec through Eversheds to ask ConvaTec to release me from the undertaking. ConvaTec refused.
October 2016, ConvaTec floated on the London Stock Exchange.
September 23rd 2026, I contacted the ConvaTec General Counsel with a request to release me from the undertaking. No response.
September 25th 2026, I contacted ConvaTec’s current solicitors, Freshfields Solicitors London, to ask them, to ask ConvaTec to release me from the undertaking. No response.
September 25th 2026, I contacted Eversheds Sutherland, to ask for records relating to the advice Eversheds gave me in early 2001. I requested copies of invoices or emails but would accept a copy of an entry in a receipt/expense ledger. I indicated I would be willing to pay for the service. No response.
From my last months of employment at ConvaTec until about 2023, agents or agencies, continued to monitor my actions and life-style; I am not aware of any surveillance since 2023. The whole saga raises questions that won’t go away. What follows is a more in-depth account and questions arising from the actions of ConvaTec, esettle, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eversheds:
The Multivac
There was a problem with this machine, which I believe ConvaTec management new about in 1988/9. An engineer from ConvaTec America came over to inspect the machine, but was unwilling to discuss the matter with myself.
Leon de Costa and eSettle
Back to me leaving ConvaTec. An unusual event occurred within an hour of me leaving employment.
On the day I left ConvaTec, I was contacted by barrister Leon de Costa, who approached me concerning the possible purchase of a domain name that I owned, legalrights.co.uk.
I subsequently carried out an internet search and discovered that Mr de Costa was associated with Judicium and its online dispute-resolution service, eSettle.
Contemporary material from around 2000–2001 establishes that eSettle was a genuine online dispute-resolution initiative operated by Judicium and that it was developing relationships with major insurance companies and law firms.
I subsequently used the eSettle service to provide information to ConvaTec concerning my dispute with the company.
At the time, I had no reason to understand why Mr de Costa had approached me about my domain name on the very day that my employment with ConvaTec ended.
Employment Tribunal
Following my departure from ConvaTec, I brought proceedings before an employment tribunal.
During the proceedings I became concerned that my case had been interfered with.
In particular, I received a telephone call on a number which I had not supplied to the tribunal. I reported this to my MP, Angela Eagle, who contacted the tribunal. I was subsequently informed that the number had been dialled randomly.
I lost my case at the employment tribunal.
I will not approach Parliament on the employment tribunal matter, as I understand MPs cannot interfere with judicial decisions.
My concern is whether there was any improper activity surrounding the proceedings which has never been properly examined.
Barbados, Christmas 2001
I was subjected to severe gaslighting on a trip to Barbados. By chance, I travelled on the same day as Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber; due to my own stupidity, I feared being implicated in the investigation. I returned home from what should have been a two-week holiday, one week early, suffering acute anxiety. Despite the presence of a considerable number of security-type-individuals present, at least one an ex-FBI employee, I was never questioned or confronted on any security matter. I ended up on antidepressants after arriving home; I had previously been diagnosed as suffering depression by the ConvaTec company doctor. I must admit, being a whistleblower in British Industry is a very stressful matter.
The legalrights.co.uk website and ConvaTec
Following my departure from ConvaTec, I established and published a website at:
The website contained statements concerning my experiences at ConvaTec and matters arising from my employment.
I have now located a copy of the undertaking which I signed in connection with the closure of the website. The original undertaking, I believe, is with ConvaTec.
The document is headed "UNDERTAKING" and states that it was given "in consideration of Convatec Limited not issuing proceedings" in respect of what ConvaTec described as false and/or disparaging comments contained on the website.
The undertaking required me to:
immediately close the website and remove its contents from publication over the internet;
withdraw other publications containing statements of the type appearing on the website; and
not repeat, publish or disclose, verbally or in writing, the statements to which ConvaTec's complaint related, nor make any other statements of a false and/or disparaging nature concerning ConvaTec.
I signed the undertaking as J Lynchehaun.
The document is dated 5 October 2002 and carries the reference MAN_002/482973-1.
If I find a copy of legalrights.co.uk, I will comply with the undertaking and not publish the content.
Possible action following publication on legalrights.co.uk
There is another aspect of the legalrights.co.uk material which I believe warrants further investigation.
Following publication of information about my experiences at ConvaTec, I made a number of complaints concerning matters that I believed required the company's attention.
I now have reason to believe that ConvaTec acted on at least one of those complaints following its publication on legalrights.co.uk.
This is potentially significant because it may provide evidence that information I had published was received, considered and acted upon by ConvaTec.
I do not wish to overstate what the available evidence proves. My present position is that there is evidence which causes me to believe that action was taken, but I am seeking to establish the precise connection between:
the complaint I published → ConvaTec becoming aware of it → the subsequent action taken by ConvaTec.
If I can locate contemporaneous correspondence or other records confirming this sequence, I will add those documents to this account.
Why this matters
The distinction between a complaint merely being published and a complaint subsequently producing a response or action is important.
If documentary evidence establishes that ConvaTec acted upon information published on legalrights.co.uk, it could help establish:
that ConvaTec was aware of the particular allegations;
approximately when it became aware of them;
what response followed;
whether the response related directly to the substance of my complaint;
and whether other individuals or organisations became involved.
This may also help establish a more precise chronology of events surrounding the legalrights.co.uk website and the undertaking dated 5 October 2002.
I am therefore continuing to look for contemporaneous documents that may establish what happened after the complaints were published.
At this stage, I regard this as an evidential question requiring further investigation rather than a conclusion.
Why the undertaking is significant
The undertaking provides documentary confirmation that ConvaTec Limited had made a formal complaint about the contents of my website and that legal proceedings were contemplated if the matter was not resolved.
It also establishes an important date in the chronology: 5 October 2002.
This is significant because it places the legalrights.co.uk dispute approximately two years after I left ConvaTec and after the period during which I say I was advised by Eversheds.
I am particularly interested in establishing the circumstances surrounding the preparation of this undertaking, including:
which Eversheds solicitor prepared it;
who instructed Eversheds to act;
whether Eversheds was acting directly for ConvaTec Limited;
the date on which ConvaTec first complained about the website;
what specific statements ConvaTec alleged were false or disparaging;
whether correspondence exists between ConvaTec and Eversheds concerning the website;
and whether there is any connection between this matter and the earlier involvement of Leon de Costa/eSettle/Judicium.
A further question concerning Eversheds
There is an additional issue which I believe warrants investigation.
I was advised by Eversheds following my departure from ConvaTec in early 2001. I provided Eversheds with all manner of paperwork associated with my employment with ConvaTec ltd. My recollection is that they charged me for copying said paperwork.
The undertaking concerning my website is dated 5 October 2002 and appears to have been prepared by Eversheds, with the document carrying the reference MAN_002/482973-1.
I am therefore attempting to establish the precise relationship between:
my earlier representation by Eversheds → my former employer ConvaTec → the legalrights.co.uk complaint → Eversheds' preparation of the undertaking.
I am not presently alleging that any solicitor or organisation acted improperly. I am seeking the original correspondence and other documentation so that the circumstances can be established from evidence rather than assumption.
I appreciate that some of the events I have described occurred many years ago.
I also appreciate that some of my conclusions cannot presently be established simply from my personal recollection.
An unresolved connection
I subsequently became concerned that there might have been a connection between eSettle/Judicium and ConvaTec or Bristol-Myers Squibb.
At present, I have not established documentary evidence proving such a connection.
It is therefore important that I distinguish between what I know and what I suspect.
What I can establish is that:
I left ConvaTec in December 2000.
I was approached by Leon de Costa concerning my domain name on the day I left.
Mr de Costa was associated with Judicium/eSettle.
eSettle was operating as an online dispute-resolution service at that time.
I subsequently used the service to communicate information concerning my dispute with ConvaTec.
I later published details of my case on legalrights.co.uk.
I was subsequently required to take down material from the website and signed an undertaking to do so.
That undertaking was prepared by Eversheds solicitor Ed Farrelly’s office.
Eversheds had also advised me during the period following my departure from ConvaTec.
The documentary evidence relating to the undertaking is particularly important. I am currently attempting to locate associated correspondence. My principal concerns are:
I would like to know whether information concerning my employment dispute, medical history, private life, banking affairs or other personal circumstances was obtained or disseminated by persons unknown to me.
If such activity occurred, I would like to know whether it was considered necessary and proportionate under the law applying at the time.
What I am now seeking to establish
I am attempting to establish:
Why Leon de Costa approached me about legalrights.co.uk on the day I left ConvaTec.
Whether eSettle/Judicium had any commercial, legal or other relationship with ConvaTec or Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Who instructed Eversheds to prepare the undertaking concerning legalrights.co.uk.
Whether ConvaTec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Judicium, eSettle or another organisation was involved in that decision.
The precise nature of Eversheds' advice to me in early 2001.
The circumstances in which Eversheds subsequently acted for ConvaTec.
Whether Peter Norbury was involved in any ConvaTec matter connected with the events described here.
Whether any confidential information provided by me to Eversheds was relevant to subsequent work undertaken by the firm for ConvaTec.
Documentary investigation
Because these events occurred more than 25 years ago, I recognise the importance of distinguishing recollection from documentary evidence.
I am therefore attempting to locate original correspondence, legal documents, emails, website material and other records from the period.
I intend to add further documentation to this account as it is located.
The purpose of publishing this information is not to assert conclusions which the evidence does not presently establish. It is to create a chronological record of events and identify questions which, in my view, remain unanswered.
Disclosure
2008, Bristol-Myers Squibb sold ConvaTec to Nordic Capital and Avista Capital Partners. Were the purchasers aware of my case, and of the undertaking?
Liability
Is there a continuing liability, and if so, who would bear that liablity? When Bristol-Myers Squibb sold ConvaTec, then the private equity companies later floated ConvaTec on the London Stock Market, did my complaint remain merely an historical employee grievance, or did it result in a liability, investigation, undertaking, settlement, remediation, environmental matter, employment matter or other continuing obligation which passed through the 2008 transaction and ultimately became a matter for the listed ConvaTec Group of today?
Finding a solicitor
October 2026, I am finding it colossally difficult to find a solicitor willing to act for me, but I shall continue to search. I understand how local solicitors will be restricted by conflict of interest considerations.
My Health
I have pleural plaques, Bronchiectasis and a nodule on my lungs. I am told it is as a result of asbestos exposure. There was no asbestos exposure at ConvaTec. 5th October 2026, a message from my doctor’s surgery told me my lung condition is stable. This was confirmed by a specialist on 8th October 2026.
When working at ConvaTec I was diagnosed as suffering from depression by the company doctor, after complaining of xxxxxx Content Restricted by Undertaking xxxxxxx. Due to the effect xxxxxxxx Content Restricted by Undertaking xxxxxxxx had on my mental health, I admit I did suffer depression following my trip to Barbados in 2001; I agreed to go on antidepressants. When I related my story to a NHS mental healthcare professional some time later, I was not believed but diagnosed as needing antipsychotic drugs. My doctor recommends I remain on both categories of drugs to this day. I had no mental health problems at all in my life before whistleblowing at ConvaTec in middle age.
A commercial matter
I believe there has been a massive cover up of market-sensitive information by agents and agencies. Possibly justified, possibly not!! Bristol-Myers Squibb have from day one dealt with the matter as a commercial one, with all that entails. I don’t propose to expand on the Bristol-Myers Squibb aspect of the matter, but will concentrate on the UK elements of the case.
Conclusion
Despite having no legal representation, I have arrived at the following conclusion: I believe the undertaking still has legal standing in 2026. How much standing when relating to wrong doing and matters of public interest, we’ll probably find out sooner rather than later? I have refrained from making any further criticism of ConvaTec. This does not infer I believe that whistleblower laws were not broken at the time of the undertaking. There was no clause in the undertaking that said I could not disclose the existence of the undertaking, so I am happy to leave that in my account. I further believe, the disclosures I intended to make to the Food and Drug Administration in 2002 were in the public interest.
James (Jim) Lynchehaun
