Camurat v Thurrock Borough Council
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- SIR COLIN MACKAY
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
- Negligence Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Camurat sued Thurrock for misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligence, and malicious falsehood. The case focused on whether Thurrock’s post-termination disclosures to the police breached their termination agreement, which included a reference schedule. The court found that public safety concerns justified broader disclosures than those outlined in the agreed reference schedule. The court determined that there was no implied term in the termination agreement to limit Thurrock’s disclosures and no duty of care extended to providing necessary information to the police for safeguarding purposes. Thus, the claims were dismissed.
Judgment
Sir Colin Mackay:
This is a claim by Mr Camurat for damages flowing from an agreement to terminate his contract of employment with the defendant (“Thurrock”) as Head of Languages at Belhouse Chase Specialist Humanities College with effect from 31 December 2008.
The college, as it was then known, was maintained and controlled by Thurrock and the head teacher was Mrs Theresa Walker for whose acts and omissions it is agreed Thurrock is vicariously liable.
He brings a claim for damages for misrepresentation and/or breach of contract and/or negligence and/or malicious falsehood. This trial is of the issues on liability only.
The Background
The claimant started work at the school on 1 June 2003 and within three years was promoted to Head of Languages. From an early stage of employment there began a series of allegations relating to the inappropriate use of force by the claimant in respect his dealings with pupils. There is no suggestion, I should stress at the outset, of any sexual connotations or impropriety on his part. None of the incidents involved significant injury and they mainly consisted of holding grabbing or pushing pupils to restrain or control them.
He was suspended in February 2005 after six such incidents and interviewed by police but no proceedings were taken. A disciplinary process took place the outcome of which was no sanctions but a letter of professional advice.
In 2007 there was a second disciplinary process which related to two matters, mainly confrontational behaviour towards certain members of staff and the use of inappropriate language to a female pupil. Though the leadership of the school recommended dismissal the outcome of the hearing was, in respect of the matter concerning the pupil, a letter of professional advice which was given in January 2008.
A third disciplinary process resulting from an incident on 23 November 2007 in which the claimant confiscated a mobile phone brought into a classroom by a pupil. The incident was captured on CCTV. Again the head teacher recommended summary dismissal but on 10 September 2008 a disciplinary panel of the governors of the school issued a final written warning and lifted the suspension to he had been subject since the allegation had been made.
In October and November negotiations took place between the school and the claimant, who had the assistance of a union representative, as to his return to work on the expiry of the period of his suspension. That resulted in a document