Dr Beaulah Banfield v Stanmore College

Dr Beaulah Banfield v Stanmore College

The claim was unsuitable for Part 8 procedure due to substantial disputes of fact; the injunction staying redundancy was set aside as trust and confidence had broken down and damages were an adequate remedy; neither party was entitled to summary judgment or strike out as further evidence was required; the claimant's application for contempt was wholly misconceived and refused; the matter was transferred to Part 7 for full pleadings and directions.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Beaulah Banfield; Defendant: Stanmore College
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Dispute (redundancy, Breach of Contract) / Interlocutory Applications (injunction, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Contempt); Transfer From Part 8 to Part 7 Procedure
Outcome
Defendant's application to set aside injunction granted; both parties' applications for summary judgment/strike out refused; claimant's application for permission for contempt refused; claim transferred to Part 7 procedure; costs of and occasioned by incorrect use of Part 8 procedure awarded to defendant; costs on...
Legal Topics
Redundancy, Breach of Employment Contract, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Data Protection, Civil Procedure Rules
Employment Law Civil Procedure Redundancy Breach of Employment Contract Summary Judgment Strike Out Injunctions Contempt of Court +2 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Beaulah Banfield

Claimant

Stanmore College

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Dispute (redundancy, Breach of Contract) / Interlocutory Applications (injunction, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Contempt); Transfer From Part 8 to Part 7 Procedure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the redundancy and dismissal of the claimant was a sham and in breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether the Part 8 procedure was appropriate given disputed facts
  3. 3 Whether the injunction staying redundancy should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was unsuitable for Part 8 procedure due to substantial disputes of fact; the injunction staying redundancy was set aside as trust and confidence had broken down and damages were an adequate remedy; neither party was entitled to summary judgment or strike out as further evidence was required; the claimant's application for contempt was wholly misconceived and refused; the matter was transferred to Part 7 for full pleadings and directions.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to set aside injunction granted; both parties' applications for summary judgment/strike out refused; claimant's application for permission for contempt refused; claim transferred to Part 7 procedure; costs of and occasioned by incorrect use of Part 8 procedure awarded to defendant; costs on...

Orders

  • Injunction of 28 November 2025 set aside as of judgment date
  • Claim transferred to Part 7 procedure