Langley v GMB & Ors

Langley v GMB & Ors

The GMB and Trade Union Law did not breach their respective duties of care. The GMB provided reasonable advice and support, and the strategy to negotiate a settlement rather than litigate was reasonable given the weak merits of any employment tribunal or whistleblowing claim. Trade Union Law's advice was limited to the meaning and effect of the Compromise Agreement, which was properly explained to Mr Langley. There was no inappropriate pressure, collusion, or breach of the ACAS code. The claims against all defendants are dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Paul Langley; First Defendant: GMB; Second Defendant: Katharina Koester; Third Defendant: Trade Union Legal LLP T/A Trade Union Law
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Negligence (tort and Contract) / Judgment After Trial on Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Trade Union Liability, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Employment Settlement Agreements, Whistleblowing, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Tort Law Contract Law Duty of Care Negligence Trade Union Liability Solicitor's Duty of Care Employment Settlement Agreements +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Langley

Claimant

GMB

First Defendant

Katharina Koester

Second Defendant

Trade Union Legal LLP T/A Trade Union Law

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence (tort and Contract) / Judgment After Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the duty of care owed by a trade union to a member in employment disputes?
  2. 2 Did the GMB breach its duty of care to Mr Langley in advice and representation?
  3. 3 Did Trade Union Law and Ms Koester breach their duty of care in advising on the Compromise Agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The GMB and Trade Union Law did not breach their respective duties of care. The GMB provided reasonable advice and support, and the strategy to negotiate a settlement rather than litigate was reasonable given the weak merits of any employment tribunal or whistleblowing claim. Trade Union Law's advice was limited to the meaning and effect of the Compromise Agreement, which was properly explained to Mr Langley. There was no inappropriate pressure, collusion, or breach of the ACAS code. The claims against all defendants are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against all defendants dismissed
  • Claimant to pay defendants' costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed taxation if not agreed