Ann-Marie Janice Smith v Pastor John Charles Surridge & Ors
| Judge | Mr Justice Saini |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 2025 |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 74 (KB) |
| Counsel | Robert Sterling,William Mccormick Kc |
| Date | 20 January 2025 |
| Year | 2025 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 74 (KB)
Case No: QB-2022-000858; QB-2022-000862
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 20/01/2025
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SAINI
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
ANN-MARIE JANICE SMITH Claimant
- and -
(1) PASTOR JOHN CHARLES SURRIDGE
(2) PASTOR IAN SWEENEY
(3) PASTOR EMMANUEL OSEI
(4) KAZ JAMES
KAYON JUDYDEEN JACKSON
-and-
(1) PASTOR JOHN CHARLES SURRIDGE
(2) PASTOR IAN SWEENEY
(3) PASTOR EMMANUEL OSEI
(4) KAZ JAMES
Defendants
Claimant
Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Sterling (instructed by Carruthers Law) for the Claimants
William McCormick KC (instructed by Shakespeare Martineau LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 25, 27, 28 November; 2-4 December 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on Monday 20 January 2025 by
circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National
Archives.
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)
Smith v Surridge
Mr Justice Saini :
This judgment is in 11 main parts as follows:
I. Overview: paras.[1]-[13].
II. The Witnesses: paras.[14]-[17].
III. The Correct Defendants: Unincorporated Associations: paras.[18]-[22].
IV. The Facts: paras.[23]-[127].
V. Libel- serious harm: para.[128].
VI. Libel- qualified privilege and malice: paras.[129]-[135].
VII. Libel- the truth defence: paras.[136]-[149].
VIII. Negligent misstatement: paras.[150]-[151].
IX. Misuse of private information: paras.[152]-[158].
X. Remedies: paras.[159]-[160]
XI. Conclusion: para.[161].
I. Overview
1. This is a case about teachers, safeguarding and employment references. The
Claimants are secondary school teachers. Ann-Marie Janice Smith (“Miss Smith”) is a
Mathematics teacher. Kayon Judydeen Jackson (“Mrs Jackson”) is an English teacher.
They each taught at an Independent School, Stanborough Secondary School (“the
School”) in Garston, Watford between September 2014 and August 2018. In
September 2018, they both took up new teaching posts at the Oasis Academy in
Enfield. Some years later, in December 2020, they each applied for, and were offered
(subject to satisfactory references from their last two schools) new teaching roles
obtained by a recruitment consultant, Mr Dan Brown, retained by the Claimants.
Oasis Academy provided satisfactory references.
2. That was not the case however with the School. On 18 March 2021, the personal
assistant to the Headteacher of Stanborough School sent on his behalf a preliminary
reference (“the Reference”) to Mr Brown which stated insofar as material, as follows:
“We can confirm that the applicants worked at Stanborough
School during the following dates…However, I would like to
inform you that there were some safeguarding issues during
their time at Stanborough School . We will fill in the forms
you have sent us in detail and send these to you shortly.”
(The bold and underlined emphasis is as in the original: see [107] below for the full
text of the relevant email).
3. Mr Brown passed on the terms of the Reference to the Stockwood Park Academy. No
further “forms” were in fact completed by Mr James in relation to the “safeguarding
issues” referred to in the Reference (Mr Brown having informed Mr James that he did
not need the further forms), and the Stockwood Park Academy withdrew the job
offers it had made to the Claimants. The Claimants deny that there were any
safeguarding issues from their time at the School, and they say the Reference led to
their job offers being withdrawn.
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)
Smith v Surridge
4. It is in these circumstances that the Claimants bring the present proceedings for a
number of torts: libel, negligent misstatement and misuse of private information
(“MPI”). Aside from Mr Kaz James, the Headmaster (admitted publisher of the
Reference) claims are made against a number of individuals said by the Claimants to
be responsible for the various torts. The position as to the true and proper defendants
is complicated by the fact that the School is not a legal person. It is associated in some
fashion with the British Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (“the BUC”)
which is part of the global Seventh-day Adventist Church, a Protestant denomination.
The BUC is itself an unincorporated association, and a registered charity. The identity
of the correct defendants is one of the issues I need to determine in Section III below.
5. Although there are two separate claims before me most of the factual and legal
questions which arise in the claims are the same. The cases have been case-managed
together and on 20 February 2023, HHJ Lewis (sitting as a Judge of the High Court),
gave a judgment on the meaning of the Reference: see [2023] EWHC 351 (KB). At
[37], the judge held that the Reference had a Chase level 1 meaning, namely that
something had actually happened that gave rise to a safeguarding issue. He explained
that there was nothing in the Reference that suggested a need for caution, or to qualify
what was being said. At [38], the judge determined that the meaning of the Reference
in respect of each Claimant was: “During the time when she worked at the School, she
did something that gave rise to a safeguarding issue, namely something that either
caused harm to a child, or placed a child at risk of harm”. The judge further held that
this meaning was defamatory at common law. It was common ground that the words
complained of were a statement of fact.
The issues
6. The principal liability-related issues in relation to the libel claim can be summarised
as follows:
(1) Have the Claimants shown that the Reference caused or was likely to
cause serious harm?
(2) Was the Reference published on an occasion of qualified privilege?
(3) If so, have the Claimants proved malice so as to rebut that privilege?
(4) Have the Defendants shown the substantial truth of the words
complained of?
7. As regards the negligent misstatement claim, the issue is breach of duty. It is
conceded on behalf of the Defendants that a duty of care was owed on the basis
established in Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 396. In relation to the MPI
claim, the issue is whether the Reference contained information in respect of which
there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. For the Claimants it was conceded at
trial that if the truth defence to the libel claim succeeded, the negligent misstatement
and MPI claims would also necessarily fail.
8. Mr Robert Sterling appeared for the Claimants and Mr William McCormick KC
appeared for the Defendants. I am grateful to Counsel for their concise cross-
examination of the witnesses and their focussed submissions. That was particularly
helpful in a case where the oral and written evidence on both sides travelled into areas
which went substantially beyond matters required to resolve the legal issues. At points
this evidence resembled a blow-by-blow account of staff, pupil and parent relations
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting