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 reference given met the contractual obligation. The compromise agreement complied with section 203 ERA 1996. The solicitor's advice was not negligent given the time constraints, available information, and the claimant's own actions. The claims against the first defendant were properly struck out and there was no triable issue against the second defendant.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 727 (QB)
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 Orders of Master Rose Striking Out Claims Against 1st Defendant and Refusing to Strike Out Against 2nd Defendant
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compromise Agreements, Employment References, Unfair Dismissal, Misrepresentation, Negligence of Legal Advisers, Section 203 Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Law Contract Law Professional Negligence Compromise Agreements Employment References Unfair Dismissal Misrepresentation Negligence of Legal Advisers +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 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 Orders of Master Rose Striking Out Claims Against 1st Defendant and Refusing to Strike Out Against 2nd Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a common law or contractual duty to provide a reference
  2. 2 Whether the reference provided was adequate or prejudicial
  3. 3 Whether the compromise agreement complied with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

There is no general duty to provide a reference; the reference given met the contractual obligation. The compromise agreement complied with section 203 ERA 1996. The solicitor's advice was not negligent given the time constraints, available information, and the claimant's own actions. The claims against the first defendant were properly struck out and there was no triable issue against the second defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against first defendant (British Telecommunications) struck out
  • No triable issue against second defendant (Mr Stanbury); claim dismissed