AB v A Chief Constable (Rev 1) [2014] EWHC 1965 (QB) (16 June 2014)

AB v A Chief Constable (Rev 1) [2014] EWHC 1965 (QB) (16 June 2014)

The Chief Constable was not under a private law duty to send the second reference due to the disclaimer and template policy, but was under a public law duty of honesty and integrity to provide full and frank information to the Regulatory Body. However, this duty was subject to compliance with data protection principles and legitimate expectations.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1965 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: AB; Defendant: A Chief Constable
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2014
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim and Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeds; Chief Constable not obliged to send second reference.
Legal Topics
Employer References, Duty of Care, Police Disciplinary Proceedings, Data Protection, Legitimate Expectation, Public Law Duties
Employment Law Police Law Data Protection Administrative Law Employer References Duty of Care Police Disciplinary Proceedings Legitimate Expectation +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Claimant

A Chief Constable

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim and Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Constable was under a legal duty to send a second reference disclosing disciplinary and sickness information
  2. 2 Whether sending the second reference would breach data protection principles and the claimant's legitimate expectations

Ratio Decidendi

The Chief Constable was not under a private law duty to send the second reference due to the disclaimer and template policy, but was under a public law duty of honesty and integrity to provide full and frank information to the Regulatory Body. However, this duty was subject to compliance with data protection principles and legitimate expectations.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds; Chief Constable not obliged to send second reference.

Orders

  • Chief Constable restrained from sending second reference disclosing disciplinary and sickness information to Regulatory Body.