Desmond v Foreman & Ors [2012] EWHC 1900 (QB) (23 July 2012)

Desmond v Foreman & Ors [2012] EWHC 1900 (QB) (23 July 2012)

References to the 2001 incident after exculpatory findings were arguably unjustifiable and may constitute interference with Article 8 and Data Protection rights; however, safeguarding procedures and communications regarding suitability for working with children were within statutory duties and protected by qualified privilege. The words complained of are not capable of bearing meanings of actual guilt (Chase Level 1) but may bear lesser meanings. Limitation bars claims for publications outside the one-year period.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1900 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Vincent Desmond; Defendant: John Foreman; Defendant: Sue Shenton; Defendant: Stella Elliott; Defendant: Cheshire West and Cheshire Council; Defendant: Cheshire East Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation, Human Rights, Data Protection / Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part; claimant's applications largely dismissed; ruling on meaning: words not capable of bearing Chase Level 1 meanings; some claims may proceed regarding references to 2001 incident.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Limitation Period, Article 8 ECHR, Data Protection Principles, Safeguarding Children, Referral to Independent Safeguarding Authority, Disclosure of Criminal Record Information
Defamation Human Rights Data Protection Employment Law Qualified Privilege Limitation Period Article 8 ECHR Data Protection Principles +3 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Desmond

Claimant

John Foreman

Defendant

Sue Shenton

Defendant

Stella Elliott

Defendant

Cheshire West and Cheshire Council

Defendant

Cheshire East Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation, Human Rights, Data Protection / Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing defamatory meanings attributed by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the publications are protected by qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether references to the 2001 incident constituted unjustifiable interference with Article 8 and Data Protection rights

Ratio Decidendi

References to the 2001 incident after exculpatory findings were arguably unjustifiable and may constitute interference with Article 8 and Data Protection rights; however, safeguarding procedures and communications regarding suitability for working with children were within statutory duties and protected by qualified privilege. The words complained of are not capable of bearing meanings of actual guilt (Chase Level 1) but may bear lesser meanings. Limitation bars claims for publications outside the one-year period.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part; claimant's applications largely dismissed; ruling on meaning: words not capable of bearing Chase Level 1 meanings; some claims may proceed regarding references to 2001 incident.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for defendants on most claims
  • Ruling that words complained of are not capable of bearing meanings of actual guilt