Dike v Rickman

Dike v Rickman

All statements in the reference were found to be true and justified by the evidence. No breach of contract or negligence occurred. No malicious falsehood was established as the statements were not false. The reference did not cause the loss of employment opportunity; other factors contributed. The claims against both defendants fail.

Parties
Claimant: Ian Dike; Defendant: Gerald Rickman; Defendant: Ziegler Rickman Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
References for Employment, Negligence, Malicious Falsehood, Sexual Harassment, Duty of Care
Employment Law Tort Law Contract Law References for Employment Negligence Malicious Falsehood Sexual Harassment Duty of Care

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Dike

Claimant

Gerald Rickman

Defendant

Ziegler Rickman Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reference provided by the defendants was negligent or maliciously false
  2. 2 Whether Gerald Rickman owed a personal duty of care to Ian Dike
  3. 3 Whether statements in the reference constituted sexual harassment

Ratio Decidendi

All statements in the reference were found to be true and justified by the evidence. No breach of contract or negligence occurred. No malicious falsehood was established as the statements were not false. The reference did not cause the loss of employment opportunity; other factors contributed. The claims against both defendants fail.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed