Camurat v Thurrock Borough Council [2014] EWHC 2482 (QB) (22 July 2014)

Camurat v Thurrock Borough Council [2014] EWHC 2482 (QB) (22 July 2014)

The defendant's statutory duties to safeguard children and cooperate with the police and ISA override any contractual or implied obligation to limit disclosures to the terms of the agreed reference. No misrepresentation or breach of contract occurred, no duty of care in negligence arose in the statutory context, and no malice was established in the making of disclosures. All claims fail.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2482
Parties
Claimant: Mr Jean Dominique Melik Camurat; Defendant: Thurrock Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
All claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Malicious Falsehood, Statutory Duty, Safeguarding Disclosures, Employment References
Employment Law Tort Law Contract Law Public Law Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Negligence Malicious Falsehood +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Jean Dominique Melik Camurat

Claimant

Thurrock Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached contract by disclosing information beyond the agreed reference
  2. 2 Whether the defendant made a misrepresentation inducing the claimant to enter the compromise agreement
  3. 3 Whether the defendant owed and breached a duty of care in negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's statutory duties to safeguard children and cooperate with the police and ISA override any contractual or implied obligation to limit disclosures to the terms of the agreed reference. No misrepresentation or breach of contract occurred, no duty of care in negligence arose in the statutory context, and no malice was established in the making of disclosures. All claims fail.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed