Orford v Rasmi Electronics & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 809 (10 June 2004)

Orford v Rasmi Electronics & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 809 (10 June 2004)

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance was entitled on the evidence to find that there was no actionable misrepresentation or deceit, that the defendants' report to the Health and Safety Executive was made in honest belief and not with malice, and that the costs order, though reduced to 75% due to the defendants' conduct, was within the judge's discretion.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 809
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Colin G Orford; Defendant/respondent: Rasmi Electronics; Defendant/respondent: Dr Surendra
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal and extension of time dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Deceit, Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Costs, Unfair Dismissal
Employment Law Defamation Contract Law Misrepresentation Deceit Qualified Privilege Malice Costs +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin G Orford

Claimant/applicant

Rasmi Electronics

Defendant/respondent

Dr Surendra

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was actionable misrepresentation or deceit in the claimant's employment
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' report to the Health and Safety Executive was defamatory and published with malice, defeating qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the claimant was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance was entitled on the evidence to find that there was no actionable misrepresentation or deceit, that the defendants' report to the Health and Safety Executive was made in honest belief and not with malice, and that the costs order, though reduced to 75% due to the defendants' conduct, was within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal and extension of time dismissed

Orders

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