Case Overview: Paul Girvan v BT Group PLC & Paralaw
A significant litigation involving BT has emerged at London’s High Court, with retired real estate lawyer Paul Girvan serving an £85 million conspiracy and breach of contract claim on BT plc in January 2025. The case centres on BT’s alleged conspiracy to oust the designer (Paul Girvan) from financially benefiting from his creation of a swift search interface (BTPS). The search system was designed to manage controlled disclosures of the locations of BT’s deep level underground tunnel network to property developers and construction companies planning developments across London and other UK cities and provide a fail-safe for BT’s Openreach division system crashes.
Key Legal Claims Against BT
Primary Allegations
- Conspiracy claims against BT Group and Paralaw (the provider of legal services to BT and responsible for managing the new search system devised by Paul Girvan)
- Breach of contract
- Email manipulation by an individual working for BT at a senior level
- Negligent risk management of critical infrastructure
BT’s Secret Deep Level Tunnels (DLTs)
The litigation reveals some details about BT’s Cold War-era tunnel network, strictly relevant to the claim, including:
- Strategic locations: London and other UK cities
- Critical infrastructure: Communications cables managed by Openreach
- Security significance: Tunnels run beneath strategically important buildings
- Historical context: Kingsway Exchange inspired Ian Fleming’s Q branch concept
- Construction secrecy: Originally built using Polish workers to minimize disclosure
Construction and Development Risks
Safety Concerns
The High Court claim highlights serious risks to public safety arising from construction projects above and around these deep level tunnels:
- Structural integrity risks: Inadvertent damage to tunnel ceilings and ventilation systems
- Construction project failures: as a result of lack of accurate – or any – tunnel location data
- Public safety hazards: damage to London’s infrastructure, were the tunnels to be compromised during constructions
- Critical infrastructure risk: Potentially catastrophic damage to London’s infrastructure from tunnel damage in vulnerable locations
Already Documented System Failures
- 2013 London incident: Openreach search results failed to show tunnel or shaft existence. Developer excavation works damaged them
- 2015 Birmingham incident: Openreach search results failed to show tunnel existence. Developer excavation works damaged them
- 2017 London failures: Over 60% of location enquiries failed to reveal tunnel network. It is not known whether developments nevertheless went ahead
- Ongoing disclosure gaps: Tunnels do not appear in Land Registry searches.
In 2023, BT was fined £17.5m by OFCOM for major disruptions to emergency calls handling, meaning 14,000 ‘999’ calls could not be connected during an 11 hour period.
Further Openreach system failures resulting in construction damage to BT’s communications network could prove highly costly – and not just for BT.
The BTPS Search System Controversy
Proposed Solution and Revenue Stream
Paul Girvan developed the BTPS (BT Property Search) system. Openreach has reported that it receives over 2million requests for searches each year. If only a minority of these searches required confirmation of the locations of the tunnels, by pricing the searches at £49, it nonetheless would offer a not insignificant new revenue stream for Openreach/BT. However Paralaw failed to resource the operation, compromising its efficacy . Instead, Mr Girvan and his company were frozen out, and his emails hacked in an effort to find out how he operated BTPS, removing the fail-safe features and further compromising it.
BT’s Alleged Misconduct
The litigation alleges BT and Paralaw:
- Excluded the system designer after accepting the proposal
- Failed to properly resource the operation
- Hacked Girvan’s emails to find out how it worked
- Doctored emails to impugn his integrity and then put these in evidence in the proceedings
Legal Representation and Parallels
Notable Legal Connections
- BT’s legal team: Same counsel who represented Post Office in Bates v Post Office litigation (Horizon scandal)
- Self-representation: Paul Girvan representing himself in proceedings
- Precedent implications: Potential parallels to conduct of other major corporate litigation cases
Impact on Property Development Industry
Developer Challenges
The case highlights critical issues for:
- Property developers requiring accurate site information
- Construction companies needing tunnel location data
- Planning authorities managing development approvals
- Conveyancing processes lacking complete infrastructure disclosure
Industry-Wide Implications
- Due diligence standards for property development
- Environmental and infrastructure searches accuracy requirements
- Risk assessment protocols for construction projects
- Liability concerns for incomplete disclosure
Claimant Background: Paul Girvan
Professional Credentials
- Education: Mathematics and Law, Trinity College, Cambridge (MA 1983)
- Legal experience: Commercial real estate practice including Allen & Overy
- Specialization: Real estate law and analytical processes
- Current focus: Algorithmic method for streamlining the whole conveyancing process
Strategic Locations
Critical Infrastructure Concerns
The tunnel network’s proximity to sensitive locations raises questions about:
- Strategic building security
- Foreign embassy locations (including proposed Chinese Embassy near Wapping Exchange)
- Communications network vulnerability
Transparency and Corporate Responsibility
BT’s Disclosure Obligations
The litigation challenges BT’s approach to:
- Statutory disclosure requirements
- Health and safety responsibilities
- Corporate transparency standards
- Legal responsibilities
- Stakeholder communication protocols
Ongoing Legal Proceedings
High Court Case Status
- Service date: January 2025
- Court venue: London High Court
- Claim value: £85 million +
- Case type: Conspiracy and breach of contract
This case represents a significant challenge to BT plc’s handling of critical infrastructure and litigation disclosures.
Also See:
