Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

This case concerns a claim for defamation (and malice) made by a former employee of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust. A reference was provided to a provisional employer which contained inaccurate information, the content of which caused the former employee not to be offered employment. The High Court found that although a case for defamation had been made out by the former employee, the NHS Trust was protected from liability by the defence of qualified privilege. Employers have a moral, legal or social duty to provide honest and candid references to potential employers (especially public authorities) and the potential employer has a legitimate interest in receiving such references.

The facts in Thour v The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

Mr Thour (“the Claimant”) commenced employment with the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust (“the Defendant”) in September 2003 and worked for the Defendant until September 2004 as a laboratory assistant. During this time period Mr Byron was the Claimant’s line manager for a period of 6 months. After leaving the Defendant the Claimant completed a course of studies. The Claimant approached Mr Byron in 2007 and asked him if he could use his name as a referee.  Mr Byron assented.

In September 2009 the Claimant applied for the post of Medical Laboratory Assistant at Barts and the London NHS Trust (“Barts”). The Claimant, after an interview, received a condition offer from Barts on 30 October 2009. One of the conditions of that offer was that two suitable references be received. The Claimant therefore asked Mr Byron to supply Barts with a reference. Mr Byron did so using the standard “Reference Request”. However, Mr Byron indicated in the Reference Request that he would not re-employ the Claimant because of allegations of aggressive behaviour made against the Claimant by several members of staff. Barts subsequently wrote to the Claimant indicating that the references received were insufficient. The Claimant was angered by this and complained to Mr Byron on 13 November 2009. As a result of this complaint Mr Byron telephoned the Recruitment Manager at Barts to rectify the mistake that he had made. However, the position was not offered to the Claimant.

The Claimant subsequently issued a claim in the civil courts for defamation and, further or in the alternative, malice.

The law relating to employment references and defamation

Employers are under no legal duty to provide an employee or an ex-employee with a reference (subject to any contractual provisions). However, if they do then employers have to be careful in giving references – they can be pursued under contract law or tort law if the reference is unsatisfactory. The various tortious actions that an employer can be pursued for are negligence (negligent misstatement) and defamation. Further, the employer can be pursued by the employee for breach of contract if there are express contractual provisions relating to the provision of employment references. In this article, however, we will deal specifically with the tort of defamation.

An employer can be pursued for defamation by an existing or former employee if it publishes a defamatory statement that refers to that person to a third party. A defamatory statement can either be in semi-permanent form (slander) or permanent form (libel). Most disputes in which the Claimant is successful regarding defamation in an employment reference refer to libellous statements – for example, the provision of a written reference. Slander is difficult to prove as it usually relates to telephone conversations between the Defendant and third parties.

In order to be defamatory, the statement must lower the employee in the eyes of right-thinking people – in this circumstance, their potential employer. This is an objective test and is based upon how the reasonable potential employer would perceive the statement. The statement must also refer to the employee. In most cases involving employment references this is fairly clear – the reference has been requested by and is provided for the employee. Finally, the employer providing the reference must publish it to a third party. Again, this is normally straightforward in the case of written references.

There are a number of defences available to employers who have provided a potentially defamatory reference. One of these defences, utilised here, is the defence of qualified privilege. This applies where the Defendant (the previous/current employer giving the reference) has a legal, moral or social duty to communicate the statement (the reference) to the potential employer and the potential employer has a legitimate interest in receiving this communication. This protection will apply not only to provision of the reference to the potential employer but also the sending of the reference to his previous employers or to an employment agency. A defence of qualified privilege can be defeated by the proving of malice by the employee on the part of the employer – essentially that the employer had a malicious intent in publishing the reference in the form that it did.

The High Court’s decision in Thour v The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

The High Court found that a case for defamation had been made out on behalf of the Claimant. However, it considered that the defence of qualified privilege applied in the circumstances. It was found that there was a “strong public interest in employers such as Barts being able to ask for and receive honest employment references”.  The Defendant had a legal, moral or social duty to provide the reference and Barts had a legitimate interest in receiving it, regardless of its content. It is not clear from the judgment whether this strong interest applies only to public authorities but also to normal businesses. Further, Judge Tugendhat found that Mr Byron did not have a malicious intent in providing the reference – it was simply a mistake. Thus the claim for defamation failed.

Our thoughts on Thour v The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

It is not clear from this judgment as to why the Claimant did not issue the claim for negligence as well as defamation. A negligent misstatement had potentially been made by Mr Byron in providing an inaccurate reference and the defence of qualified privilege does not apply in cases of negligence, only in defamation. However, what this case demonstrates is that although employers should be careful as to whether and how they provide references, they are protected to a great extent from liability for defamation through the provision of inaccurate employment references.

Our employment law team is based in Richmond, London.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog. Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

    Your first name (required)

    Your last name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Your telephone number (required)

    Brief details of your enquiry

    Testimonials

    4.80 Average

    320 Reviews

    Anonymous

    Efficient and quick service!

    Posted 2 days ago

    Karen B

    Quick response very helpful Issue raised dealt with very quickly

    Posted 5 days ago

    Carmen T

    Redmans give Great service and advice on reading contracts. They can explain all the solicitors jargon into words that you can understand. I received excellent service an I will use them again and again.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Anonymous

    Very grateful for Mel’s efforts in handling my case from start to finish which I would have found very stressful without it. She was very professional, friendly and we had a positive outcome. Highly recommend.

    Posted 4 weeks ago

    Nalin W

    Mel Chin was my Legal Executive when I engaged the services of Redmans Solicitors to help with a redundancy matter. She was incredibly approachable and professional from start to finish. Specially I have to mention regarding prompt reply to all my email queries, It was super quick. I would thoroughly recommend Mel Chin. Many Thanks

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    I'd highly recommend Redmans Solicitors. Mel was very helpful and assisted me throughout my case.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    Sacha was very thorough and very helpful, with great advice on when to act and when to wait on my case.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    I have been very pleased with the support I got from Redmans Solicitors on my case with my employer. Caroline has always helped me to put things in perspective and showed me different scenarios ultimately to help me taking the right decision. She was very professional and always available when I needed, and at the same time also emphatic which I found also really important to establish a strong relationship. Will definitely recommend!

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    Prompt and efficient response to my enquiries. Excellent negotiating skills with my employer which considerably improved the terms of my settlement agreement.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    Very quick and professional service , Rana was very helpful

    Posted 1 month ago

    James G

    Very professional, knowledgeable and kept me informed at every stage of my case. I would highly recommend Redmans.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Pravina P

    Chris was really good and help solve my issues with current company. I would recommend him to anyone.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Paul L

    Sacha was extremely helpful in my matter. I would not hesitate you use Sacha or Redmonds again. Everyone was very helpful.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Monique N

    I had Mel Chin helping me with a settlement and she was very professional and reliable throughout my case. Mel provided me with a good understanding of what was happening and gave suggestions on routes I could take. My case was resolved and closed promptly although the opposing side were very difficult to deal with. A very big thank you to Mel and Chris.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Jackie C

    My first ever experience needing the services of a solicitor; cannot speak highly enough of Mel and Chris’s personable, reassuring and straight to the point advice in dealing with my settlement agreement. They put me at ease during an extremely stressful time. I am equally as happy with the outcome, as l am their professional services.

    Posted 2 months ago

    ""

    Really happy with the service. All very efficient. Mel rattled through things very fast, however was great whenever I needed to stop and ask a question! Would definitely return to Redmans if I ever needed Legal advice.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Peter F

    Very helpful and clear advice, would highly recommend.

    Posted 2 months ago

    William A

    Second time I have had to use Redmans. They did not disappoint. They are fast , efficient and friendly. I have already recommended them to friends and colleagues. I hope I dont have to use them again but if I have to , they are the solicitors for me.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Fleeta C

    Great service with tantastic communications. The solicitor responsible is extremely knowledgeable and was responsible for bringing a timely and desired solution.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Veronica M

    Extremely helpful, starting from a request for advice at very short notice, to dedicating time for me to understand and review all documents thoroughly.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Sophie R

    Very efficient and professional service. Chris was very empathetic, knowledgeable and personable. Highly recommended.

    Posted 2 months ago