[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Spencer v Sillitoe & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 820 (20 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/820.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 820

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr Justice Morland)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday, 20th May 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: The claimant and would-be appellant, Mr. Spencer, is a qualified solicitor and a member of the New York Bar, who was employed for 13 years as senior legal counsel in the Legal Department of the second defendant, ICL. It was his practice to work from home. In September 1999 a Mr. Richard Allnutt joined ICL from Simmons & Simmons as group counsel. Mr. Allnutt worked directly under the Legal Director, Mr. Richard Christou, and was therefore senior to Mr. Spencer.
2. There was clearly a clash of working styles between Mr. Spencer and Mr. Allnutt. In the summer of 2000 Mr. Allnutt expressed the view that Mr. Spencer should start working at ICL's Finsbury Square offices, coming into the office daily. Mr Spencer was vigorously opposed to this idea. It was in that context that a meeting took place with the first defendant, Mr. Sillitoe, who was employed in the Human Resources Department of ICL. That meeting was an off-the-record meeting or a "without prejudice" meeting. At that meeting on 30th June Mr. Spencer and Mr. Sillitoe discussed three possible options for Mr. Spencer's career. It is unnecessary to go into those options. Mr. Sillitoe maintains that at that meeting Mr. Spencer made threats to fix ICL, threats, in effect, to tamper with contracts if Mr. Spencer was to be engineered out of ICL. Mr. Spencer says and alleges that he never made any such statement at that meeting. On 10th July Mr. Spencer sent an e-mail to Mr. Sillitoe reiterating his three options. That message was forwarded to Mr. Christou who, on 12th July, expressed the view that Mr. Spencer should leave ICL, subject to Mr. Allnutt's view. A later note seems to suggest that Mr. Christou wanted Mr. Spencer to go "as cheaply as possible".
3. It is Mr. Spencer's case that it was in that context that Mr. Sillitoe fabricated the allegations relating to the meeting of 30th June. Mr. Spencer says that those allegations were seriously defamatory of him. He says that he, Mr. Spencer, did not make those allegations at that meeting, and the fact that they have been fabricated would demonstrate that Mr. Sillitoe was activated by malice in fabricating those allegations.
4. It is unnecessary in this judgment to go into the remainder of the history, save to say that the allegations that Mr. Spencer said were made up had a limited publication, in that they were made to a limited number of people at ICL, but Mr. Spencer commenced the proceedings which are the subject matter of this appeal.
5. The papers for a trial had essentially been prepared, including statements from Mr. Spencer and from Mr. Sillitoe and a number of other persons. It was in that context that an application was made to the judge, Morland J, that Mr. Spencer's action should be summarily dismissed. The judge directed himself in relation to Part 24, under which the application was made, that he should not conduct a mini trial and make findings about the credibility of individual witnesses, and that his approach should be to take an overview of the material before the court. Ultimately, taking that overview, he said:

"In my judgment, looking at the way in which really everybody in ICL dealt with the claimant, in my judgment, with a degree of apparent decency, realising that he was an excellent worker, so far as his job was concerned, that there was the problem of personalities between himself and Mr Allnutt, that it really is preposterous to suggest that Mr Sillitoe has fabricated this story that the claimant threatened to fix contracts and that the whole thing was manufactured long after the meeting of 30th June because of Richard Christou in effect telling Mr Sillitoe that the claimant had to go."

6. In my view, there is an arguable point that arises so far as summary dismissal of this action is concerned. As it seems to me, Mr. Spencer is saying that he did not make the remarks alleged. If he were believed on that, it is not a huge step to suggest that Mr. Sillitoe must have made up that those allegations had been made by Mr. Spencer. The chances of Mr. Spencer's evidence being accepted may be small when one looks at the whole background, but it seems to me arguable that he should have had the opportunity to give evidence, and that what the judge has in effect done is disbelieve Mr. Spencer, without him having given evidence and without having had a full trial. I am troubled about encouraging Mr. Spencer, as I have indicated to him, if I give him permission to appeal, because that may seem to Mr Spencer to give him some encouragement. I am troubled about the costs implications. He tells me that he is going to instruct counsel. That is wise, but he may lose the appeal and may face costs, not only his own but from the other side and all of this in the context of a difficult case on any view and in the context of a case where, as already indicated, the publication was limited and thus the damages must be low. But all that said, it seems to me that, since there is an arguable point on whether this case should have been summarily dealt with, I grant him permission to appeal.
Order: Application allowed.