Pump Court Chambers has been the victim of an alleged £2.75m fraud, according to recent High Court proceedings.

The scale of the fraud came to light following a reported judgment from Charles Morrison, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, following an earlier ex parte injunction and freezing orders made against a former employee, Gillian Goodfield, who worked in the set’s credit control department.

Morrison refused permission for the case to be heard in private and to extend a previous anonymity order made on behalf of the set following the grant of those orders, the issue of which had initially been heard in private.

Pump Court Chambers, which has chambers in London, Winchester, Swindon and Canterbury, instructed counsel from 4 New Square and Cooke Keidan & Young in the case, argued that “allowing the matter to become public… put at risk the integrity of the chambers as a going concern”.

It cited the risk of members exiting the set, leading to “a spiral of decline” driven by “members of the chambers arriving at the view that they should not be last to leave”.

At the same time, “firms of solicitors might use the circumstances surrounding the wrongdoing as a reason to delay making payment upon sums properly due and owing to [the set]”.

Noting the set’s desire to avoid adverse publicity, Morrison said that while publicity “may be an inconvenience, perhaps even a severe distraction”, he upheld the open justice principle disclosing the same.

More than £2.75m was missing from the set’s bank account when the alleged fraud was discovered in June.

Morrison explained: “Goodfield had responsibility for the bank account into which fees due to barristers were paid and for ensuring that those funds were paid to the relevant barrister.” However, according to Morrison, Goodfield later “candidly admitted to her wrongdoing; she had indeed taken the money and now bitterly regretted it”.

Morrison added that Goodfield, who was unrepresented despite being asked to seek legal advice, showed no signs of distress throughout the hearing and did not resist the orders sought.

“Her demeanour was consistent with the approach taken in her written evidence which was that she could not quite come to terms with the scale of her wrongdoing which she could now so very clearly see.”

As a result, Morrison said: “It does not seem to me that the outcome feared by PCC is such as would stand in the way of the proper administration of justice or defeat the object of the hearing.” He added that the injunctions sought would not be challenged “by the court doing its business, as it usually does, in public”, noting that members of the 135-member set were aware of the fraud.

He added: “Former members of the chambers, and indeed solicitors’ firms having dealings with [the set] might want to know of the problem at the earliest opportunity,” but Morrison said the court should not regulate such affairs without a proper case being put before it, as to whether or not the court would sit in private.

While noting counsel’s statement that high-earning barristers might decide to leave before their expenses were increased as a result of Goodfield’s wrongdoing, and might also potentially make claims for sums unpaid to them despite not having any continuing obligation to meet the chambers’ expenses, Morrison was unmoved. He said he did not believe “the risk to the freezing and disclosure exercise makes it necessary for the matter to be heard in private to secure the proper administration of justice or to avoid defeating the purpose of the hearing”.

In a statement, Pump Court Chambers said it had discovered it was “the victim of a fraud by a former staff member [which] occurred some time ago and did not impact the operational running of chambers”.

It added: “Upon discovery, we took immediate and decisive recovery action. We are pursuing all legal avenues vigorously. Chambers takes theft and fraud extremely seriously and has implemented new systems to address future risks.”

It was “business as usual” for barristers and “dedicated and trustworthy clerks” who were committed to providing its clients the highest standard of service, the chambers said, adding that the matter had been reported to the police. A freezing order on Goodfield’s assets was duly granted.