Byrnell v British Telecommunications & Anor [2009] EWHC 727 (QB) (20 February 2009)

Byrnell v British Telecommunications & Anor [2009] EWHC 727 (QB) (20 February 2009)

There is no general duty to provide a reference; the compromise agreement complied with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the reference provided was not prejudicial or inadequate; the advice given by the second defendant was not negligent given the circumstances and time constraints; and there was no actionable conspiracy or misrepresentation.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 727
Parties
Appellant: Charles Byrnell; 1st Respondent: British Telecommunications; 2nd Respondent: Mr Stanbury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master Rose's Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; claim against first defendant struck out; claim against second defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Compromise Agreements, References, Unfair Dismissal, Misrepresentation, Negligence in Legal Advice
Employment Law Contract Law Professional Negligence Compromise Agreements References Unfair Dismissal Misrepresentation Negligence in Legal Advice

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Byrnell

Appellant

British Telecommunications

1st Respondent

Mr Stanbury

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master Rose's Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a contractual or common law duty to provide a reference
  2. 2 Whether the compromise agreement complied with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the advice given by the second defendant was negligent

Ratio Decidendi

There is no general duty to provide a reference; the compromise agreement complied with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the reference provided was not prejudicial or inadequate; the advice given by the second defendant was not negligent given the circumstances and time constraints; and there was no actionable conspiracy or misrepresentation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; claim against first defendant struck out; claim against second defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • No further action against British Telecommunications.
  • No further action against Mr Stanbury.