Diamond v Mansfield & Ors [2006] EWHC 3290 (QB) (20 December 2006)

Diamond v Mansfield & Ors [2006] EWHC 3290 (QB) (20 December 2006)

The claim discloses no reasonable cause of action in contract, tort, or under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. There is no implied contractual duty of fairness in disciplinary proceedings of the Bar Council enforceable by private law action. No evidence supports allegations of malice, bad faith, or discrimination. The proper remedy for complaints about disciplinary proceedings is judicial review, not a private law claim. The claim is struck out and summary judgment is entered for the defendants.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3290
Parties
Claimant: Paul Diamond; First Defendant: Guy Mansfield QC; Second Defendant: David Etherington QC; Third Defendant: Richard Price QC; Fourth Defendant: Neil Mallon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out Claim or for Summary Judgment; Application for Pre Emptive/protective Costs Order
Outcome
Claim struck out; summary judgment for defendants; claimant's application for pre-emptive/protective costs order refused.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Negligence, Harassment, Discrimination (religion/belief), Procedural Fairness, Implied Contractual Terms, Judicial Review, Freedom of Expression, Article 6 ECHR, Article 9 ECHR
Professional Discipline Employment Law Contract Law Tort Law Human Rights Malicious Prosecution Negligence Harassment +7 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Diamond

Claimant

Guy Mansfield QC

First Defendant

David Etherington QC

Second Defendant

Richard Price QC

Third Defendant

Neil Mallon

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out Claim or for Summary Judgment; Application for Pre Emptive/protective Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bar Council and its officers can be liable in contract, tort, or for breach of statutory duty for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against a barrister
  2. 2 Whether there is an implied contractual duty to act fairly in disciplinary proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was harassed or discriminated against on grounds of religion or belief

Ratio Decidendi

The claim discloses no reasonable cause of action in contract, tort, or under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. There is no implied contractual duty of fairness in disciplinary proceedings of the Bar Council enforceable by private law action. No evidence supports allegations of malice, bad faith, or discrimination. The proper remedy for complaints about disciplinary proceedings is judicial review, not a private law claim. The claim is struck out and summary judgment is entered for the defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; summary judgment for defendants; claimant's application for pre-emptive/protective costs order refused.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed in its entirety against all defendants.
  • Summary judgment entered for all defendants under CPR Part 24.