Monk v Cann Hall Primary School & Anor

Monk v Cann Hall Primary School & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that Mrs. Monk should be given permission to amend her particulars of claim to contend that her employment was terminated on 31 August 2008, not 10 July 2008. The judge below was wrong to refuse the amendment and to strike out the claim solely on the pleadings. The question of whether the claim falls within the Johnson exclusion area depends on the facts, which must be determined at trial. The appeal was allowed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Suzanne Monk; Defendant/respondent: Cann Hall Primary School; Defendant/respondent: Essex County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Redundancy, Dismissal, Negligence, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Amendment of Pleadings
Employment Law Tort Law Personal Injury Redundancy Dismissal Negligence Jurisdiction Abuse of Process +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suzanne Monk

Claimant/appellant

Cann Hall Primary School

Defendant/respondent

Essex County Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employee can claim damages at common law for personal injury suffered in the course of and as a consequence of dismissal
  2. 2 Whether the claim falls within the Johnson exclusion area
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should be allowed to amend her particulars of claim to contend a different date of dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Mrs. Monk should be given permission to amend her particulars of claim to contend that her employment was terminated on 31 August 2008, not 10 July 2008. The judge below was wrong to refuse the amendment and to strike out the claim solely on the pleadings. The question of whether the claim falls within the Johnson exclusion area depends on the facts, which must be determined at trial. The appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission granted for Mrs. Monk to amend her particulars of claim to contend termination on 31 August 2008
  • Claim not struck out; to proceed to trial on amended pleadings