Hassan v Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospital NHS Trust

An employer’s reference must be true, fair and accurate when read as a whole. A reasonable referee is not required to provide a full or comprehensive reference, but must exercise reasonable care in responding to the request made. A claim based on an inaccurate reference also requires proof that the reference was obtained, was inaccurate, and caused the claimed employment loss. A claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 cannot be based on acts occurring before that Act came into force.

The claimant, a doctor employed as a locum senior house officer, claimed damages from the defendant NHS Trust concerning references supplied by two consultants to the General Medical Council and, allegedly, to a prospective employer. He alleged breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, racial discrimination, breach of human rights, breach of trust and confidence, and consequential loss of employment and sponsorship.

The court determined liability and causation, leaving quantum aside. It also refused permission to re-amend the claim to reinstate claims against the two consultants, which had previously been struck out.

1. Claim dismissed. The court found that both consultants were reliable witnesses and that their references were true, fair and accurate. The references identified shortcomings while supporting continued limited registration subject to further training and supervision.
2. The references were not negligent. The consultants had exercised the skill and care of reasonable consultants when answering the GMC’s specific requests. Even if any statement had been inaccurate, the references would not have been negligent on the evidence.
3. A reference-based loss claim requires proof that the prospective employer obtained the reference, that it was inaccurate or untrue, and that the claimant would or might have obtained the job if an accurate reference had been supplied. The claimant failed to prove the second and third requirements.
4. The claimant failed to establish racial motivation, breach of contract, breach of trust and confidence, or any conspiracy to prevent his progress.
5. The human-rights claim failed. Article 10(2) did not create a right to reputation or to earn a living, and no cogent evidence connected the references with family or private life under article 8. The Human Rights Act 1998 did not apply to the pre-commencement references.
6. The loss of Royal College sponsorship was caused by the claimant’s earlier summary dismissal for misconduct, not by the consultants’ references. The application to re-amend the claim against the consultants was refused.

Not stated in the judgment.