Orford v Rasmi Electronics

Permission to appeal may be granted where a claim has been summarily disposed of without the procedural notice required for a court’s own-motion order, even though the claim may ultimately face serious difficulties. A trial direction limiting issues to liability should not be bypassed without giving the claimant a fair opportunity to address damages. A report to the Health and Safety Executive may attract qualified privilege, defeated by proof of malice. The trial judge’s finding that the defendants honestly and reasonably believed the allegations was a factual conclusion for which no credible appellate challenge was shown. Permission to appeal was therefore granted on the misrepresentation claim but refused on the libel claim.

The applicant, formerly employed by Rasmi Electronics, brought claims for libel, misrepresentation and deceit against the company and its acting managing director. The County Court dismissed the claims on 4 June 2001. The misrepresentation claim concerned alleged promises about product development work, funding and time. The libel claim concerned reports to the Health and Safety Executive and alleged repetition to the applicant’s brother.

The applicant sought permission to appeal and an extension of time. He also challenged the refusal of an adjournment and the trial judge’s use of CPR 24 powers at the outset of trial. An earlier order had limited the trial to defamation and liability on the misrepresentation claim. The central issues were whether the misrepresentation claim had been dealt with fairly and whether there was any credible ground to disturb the findings on qualified privilege, malice and the defendants’ belief.

1. Misrepresentation claim. Permission to appeal was granted on this aspect. The trial judge had ruled at the beginning of the hearing, without evidence and without the required notice for a court-initiated order, that the claim had no real prospect of success. The applicant therefore had legitimate cause for complaint, particularly because the earlier directions order limited the trial to liability and the damages case had been left for later formulation and assessment. The pleaded loss was weak and difficult to establish, but the proposed case was not necessarily impossible.
2. Substantive observations. The judge below was plainly right that rescission of the employment contract was not available on the pleaded basis. It was, however, at least arguable that copying designs was not necessarily illegal and that illegality would not necessarily prevent an action for damages arising from an original misrepresentation. These observations did not finally determine the merits.
3. Libel claim. The report to the Health and Safety Executive was made on an occasion of qualified privilege. The issue was whether the defendants were actuated by malice. The trial judge found that they genuinely believed the applicant had staged the accident and that their belief was based on reasonable grounds. No specific appellate criticism demonstrated a credible basis for a different conclusion.
4. The alleged slander to the applicant’s brother was withdrawn as a separate cause of action. No court had determined whether the accident actually occurred; that issue remained open for any later personal injury proceedings. Permission to appeal the defamation decision was refused. The ancillary application to inspect the defendants’ premises and rooms was also refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On an application for permission to appeal and an extension of time, permission was granted in relation to the misrepresentation claim but refused in relation to the libel and defamation claims. The ancillary application for access to the defendants’ premises was refused.
• Newcastle upon Tyne County Court: His Honour Judge Bowers dismissed the claims on 4 June 2001.