Laidler v New College Durham [2002] EWCA Civ 38 (17 January 2002)

Laidler v New College Durham [2002] EWCA Civ 38 (17 January 2002)

There was no merit in the underlying applications as the trial was conducted properly, the judge's assessment was full and sympathetic, and no deficiency was found that could justify interference or an appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 38
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Michael Laidler; Defendant/respondent: New College Durham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Victimisation, Disclosure of Documents, Right to Privacy, Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal
Employment Law Human Rights Breach of Duty Victimisation Disclosure of Documents Right to Privacy Extension of Time Permission to Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Laidler

Claimant/appellant

New College Durham

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was victimised by the employer
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of duty by the employer
  3. 3 Whether disclosure of counselling records breached privacy rights

Ratio Decidendi

There was no merit in the underlying applications as the trial was conducted properly, the judge's assessment was full and sympathetic, and no deficiency was found that could justify interference or an appeal.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time dismissed
  • Application for permission to appeal falls away