Bartholomew v London Borough Of Hackney & Anor

An employer providing a reference owes the former employee a duty to take reasonable care. The reference must be fair and must not create an unfair or misleading impression when read as a whole. Individual statements may be factually correct yet collectively unfair. The duty does not invariably require a full or comprehensive reference. The court must assess the reference in its context, including the circumstances in which the employment ended and the information reasonably conveyed to the recipient. A reference may fairly mention unresolved disciplinary allegations where omitting them would itself be misleading, provided the reference accurately presents their status.

The appellant had been employed by Hackney as head of its race equality unit. After his employment ended by voluntary severance, Hackney supplied a reference to Richmond upon Thames Social Services. The reference accurately stated his employment history, voluntary severance, suspension, and the existence of disciplinary proceedings which had lapsed on termination.

Richmond withdrew an intended offer of employment. The appellant claimed that the reference was unfair and breached Hackney’s duty of care, relying on Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 296. The County Court dismissed the claim. The central issue on appeal was whether a reference composed of individually accurate statements could nevertheless breach the duty because it created an unfair or misleading overall impression.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that Hackney had not breached its duty of care.
2. Following Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 296, an employer providing a reference to an identified prospective employer owes the former employee a duty of care. The duty extends to the fairness of the reference as a whole, not merely to the literal accuracy of each separate statement.
3. A reference must not give an unfair or misleading overall impression, even where its component statements are factually correct. Fairness, accuracy and truth must be assessed in the round and in context. The analogy with defamation law reinforces that a statement cannot always be evaluated by dissecting it into isolated parts. This reasoning drew on Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 and Stern v Piper [1997] QB 123.
4. The duty does not impose an absolute requirement that every reference be full and comprehensive. In the circumstances, Hackney was entitled to mention the suspension and unresolved disciplinary proceedings. The allegations had not been adjudicated, but omitting them might have failed to provide a fair and accurate reference to another local authority.
5. The reference could have been improved by explaining further matters, including the nature of the allegations and the severance payment. Those omissions did not make the reference, viewed overall, unfair, inaccurate or false. The appeal against Hackney was dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Cox made on 5 March 1997 was dismissed. The appeal against Hackney was dismissed with costs.
• Lambeth County Court: The claim against Hackney was dismissed.