Dike v Rickman [2005] EWHC 3071 (QB) (22 November 2005)

Dike v Rickman [2005] EWHC 3071 (QB) (22 November 2005)

The court found that the company owed the claimant a duty of care in contract and tort to take reasonable care in preparing the reference, but the reference as provided was not negligently or maliciously prepared. The statements made were not shown to be false or misleading to the extent required to establish liability, and the claimant's own lack of integrity and credibility undermined his case. No damages were awarded.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 3071
Parties
Claimant: Ian Dike; First Defendant: Gerald Rickman; Second Defendant: Ziegler Rickman Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2005
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Reference, Negligence in Reference, Malicious Falsehood, Duty of Care in Employment References, Implied Contractual Terms
Employment Law Tort Law Contract Law Employer's Reference Negligence in Reference Malicious Falsehood Duty of Care in Employment References Implied Contractual Terms

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Dike

Claimant

Gerald Rickman

First Defendant

Ziegler Rickman Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendants owe a duty of care to the claimant in providing a reference?
  2. 2 Was the reference negligently or maliciously prepared?
  3. 3 Did the reference contain false or misleading statements?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the company owed the claimant a duty of care in contract and tort to take reasonable care in preparing the reference, but the reference as provided was not negligently or maliciously prepared. The statements made were not shown to be false or misleading to the extent required to establish liability, and the claimant's own lack of integrity and credibility undermined his case. No damages were awarded.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed