Camurat v Thurrock Borough Council

Camurat v Thurrock Borough Council

The defendant's statutory duties to disclose safeguarding information to police and ISA under the relevant legislation override any express or implied contractual terms to limit such disclosures to the terms of the agreed reference. The chronology provided was not materially misleading to the police, and there was no misrepresentation, negligence, or malice by the defendant. No duty of care was owed in the context of statutory safeguarding disclosures, and the claimant failed to prove any actionable wrong.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Jean Dominique Melik Camurat; Defendant: Thurrock Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
All claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Malicious Falsehood, Statutory Duty, Safeguarding, References for Employees
Employment Law Contract Law Tort 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 4 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 / Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached contract or misrepresented terms in the compromise agreement
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was negligent or malicious in disclosures to police and ISA
  3. 3 Whether statutory duties override contractual or implied terms regarding references and disclosures

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's statutory duties to disclose safeguarding information to police and ISA under the relevant legislation override any express or implied contractual terms to limit such disclosures to the terms of the agreed reference. The chronology provided was not materially misleading to the police, and there was no misrepresentation, negligence, or malice by the defendant. No duty of care was owed in the context of statutory safeguarding disclosures, and the claimant failed to prove any actionable wrong.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed