Dr Christopher Sydney Daniels v British Broadcasting Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Sharp |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 3057 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ10X1955, HQ10D02373, HQ10D02376 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 24 November 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 3057 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before: The Hon Mrs Justice Sharp DBE
Case No: HQ10X1955, HQ10D02373, HQ10D02376
Dr Daniels appeared in person
Adam Wolanski (instructed by the BBC Litigation Department) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 4-5 October 2010
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SHARP
Mrs Justice Sharp:
Introduction
On 2 November 2009 the Claimant was employed by the BBC on a five month fixed term contract as an intake assistant on the TV Intake team (the Team). The grade was junior and the job administrative. The Team is responsible for entering details of programmes and footage into various databases so they can be identified and accessed in the future. Ms Rita Eagle is the manager of the Team.
The Claimant has now brought three actions for libel, all of which arise from comments made about his performance as an intake assistant, by fellow members of the Team. They were made in a document compiled by Ms Eagle, which I shall call the feedback schedule. Ms Eagle produced the feedback schedule at a meeting with the Claimant on 22 January 2010 – that is, after he had been working at the BBC for two months. Apart from the Claimant, and Ms Eagle, the only persons present at the meeting at which the feedback schedule was produced, were two members of the BBC's Human Resources (HR) department. The Claimant's complaint in the three actions is confined to the production of the feedback schedule at that meeting.
The BBC applies in each action for (a) rulings pursuant to CPR Part 53 PD 4.1 that the words complained of are incapable of bearing any meaning defamatory of the Claimant; (b) for an order for summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24.2. and (c) for an extended civil restraint order against the Claimant pursuant to CPR 3.11.
Summary judgment is asked for on the ground that all the publications complained of were made on an occasion of qualified privilege (indeed the Claimant does not contend otherwise); and that the claims have no realistic prospect of succeeding, because there is no evidence to support the Claimant's allegations of malice.
The feedback schedule
The feedback schedule is reproduced below.
| Objective | Date | Incident | Colleague/Contact |
| Training- INFAX | 11/01/2010 | BRD's on system before HDC- Dancing on Ice, rang production before checking with team. | Trevor |
| Training- INFAX | 11/01/2010 | Core and series titles wrong, One Show PasBs | Juha |
| Team working/ INFAX | 11/01/2010 | Asking customer for feedback on work undertaken- Total Wipe Out awards. Also punctuation incorrect on core title | Customer |
| Training- INFAX | 12/01/2010 | Tape logged under wrong programme number “only Connect” instead of “Cranford”. | Juha |
| INFAX/Team Working | 13/01/2010 | VTRR-Wales Post Production. Trust the Red Bee communications. Also non communications with team. | Tania |
| Team working | 12/01/2010 | DTS problem on CBBC- 8 minute gap spoke with colleague who advised to speak to team leader and you allegedly said no. Trevor overheard CD ringing Red Bee-Winnie Foo 4x's was advised to look up pics and told Winnie no access. | Trevor |
| Team working | 14/01/2010 | Customer query on team email, CD took on issue waited a number of hours before Ash arrived in office to ask her advice, instead of speaking to another colleague. | Ashraf |
| Team working | 18/01/2010 | PIC access required by CD, Lauren offered to assist but CD approached Manjit who was not logged in. When Lauren offered again CD replied in a curt manner. | Lauren |
| Team working | 13/01/2010 | News Night Review tape- CD spoke to Joe Bennett from News instead of speaking to team for advice. Manjeet, Lauren and Scott were available and CD awaited to speak to me only MFA team. | Trevor |
| Training | 18/01/2010 | Inappropriate use of DTS check list used between intake and Cat. | Kathryn Stickley |
| INFAX | 21/01/2010 | Incorrect title logged again programme Dancing Wheels. | Lauren |
| INFAX | 15/01/2010 | Breakfast- use of ??? Instead of correct recording, when Manjeet advised CD to speak to team leader CD replied “told not to ask too many questions”. | Manjeet |
| Team working | 19/01/2010 | Responding to Lucy Chipman email incorrectly not following query. | Lucy |
In his first libel action brought against the BBC (“the BBC action”) the Claimant complains in respect of publication of all 13 items on the feedback schedule.
His two other libel actions are brought against former fellow members of the Team. In his second action brought against Ms Lauren Bird (“the Bird action”) he complains only of the publication of the words in the 8 th item on the schedule (“PIC access required by CD, Lauren offered to assist but CD approached Manjit who was not logged in. When Lauren offered again CD replied in a curt manner”). In his third action brought against Ms Ashraf Heidari (“the Heidari action”) he complains only of the publication of the words in the 7 th item in the feedback schedule (“Customer query on team email, CD took on issue waited a number of hours before Ash arrived in office to ask her advice, instead of speaking to another colleague”).
Two other potential libel actions are “in the wings”. In June 2010 the Claimant wrote to the BBC stating his intention to bring two further claims arising out of the publication of the feedback schedule; against Ms Eagle personally and in respect of another former colleague Ms Chipman.
A Defence and Reply have been served in the BBC action. No defence has yet been served in the other two actions: though both parties have proceeded on the assumption that if they were, they, and the Replies, would raise essentially the same issues as arise in the BBC action.
Factual Background
The background to the production of the feedback schedule and matters pertaining to the Claimant's case on malice are dealt with in two witness statements of Ms Eagle, a witness statement from Margaret (Maggie) Lydon and a witness statement of David Attfield. Ms Lydon occupies a senior management position within the BBC as its head of Metadata services and her overall responsibilities include the provision of Archive services within the BBC. Mr Attfield is a solicitor in the BBC's Litigation department and has day to day conduct of the three actions on its behalf. Some of the factual background is also referred to by the Claimant in his Reply to the BBC's Defence and in his skeleton arguments prepared for the purpose of this hearing.
Ms Eagle is responsible for the management of three teams within the BBC's Information & Archives Division which is responsible for maintaining the BBC's archive of its recording output and for providing library and other information services. One of the teams she manages is the Team which is based at Television Centre, and with which she spent about half her time during the material period. Its particular function is to ensure accurate details of programmes and footage are entered correctly in the database so they can be identified and accessed in the future. The Team has eight full time posts, and during the period when the Claimant was employed there, Ms Tania Gomes was its Team Leader.
The Claimant was appointed as an intake assistant (his job title was senior media assistant) in November 2009 to fill a temporary vacancy which had arisen in the Team, on a five month fixed contract. His job was a junior administrative one, which involved the performance of routine functions. Ms Eagle says she quickly began to have concerns about the Claimant and his lack of interaction with the Team during his standard on the job training. Her concerns were based on her own observations and feedback provided by other team members. The training involved shadowing more experienced colleagues. She says the Claimant seemed to have problems following set procedures and taking on board certain information. He seemed to prefer trying to work things out for himself and Ms Eagle was aware this was causing confusion and wasting time. There were also only a few people within the Team he would talk to, and did not speak to others, including the two people who sat on either side of him, one of whom was Ms Bird, who was an experienced member of the Team. These matters were raised with the Claimant by Tania Gomes, on an informal basis on 25 November 2009.
However, Ms Eagle says it was apparent from her own observation and discussions with team members that the Claimant's interaction with the Team had not improved; and that he would raise queries with customers (i.e. others within the BBC who were supplying the Team with information to catalogue) instead of following the correct procedure, which was for him to ask for advice before doing so. Ms Eagle says she was concerned because this could make the Team look unprofessional and lead to mistakes or cause confusion (because the customers would not necessarily be aware of the remit or responsibilities of the Team).
After advice was taken from the BBC's Human Resources (HR) department, a formal meeting was arranged with the Claimant for 7 January 2010 attended by the Claimant, Ms Eagle and Ms Gomes. At that meeting, the Claimant was told that there were three specific areas of concern which the Claimant needed to address if his employment was not to be terminated on capability grounds. These were (1) training, since the Claimant had not reached the required level of competency despite receiving training; (2) his use of a database...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nursing & Midwifery Council and Another v Harrold
...of Appeal, 23 November 2000, unreported) at [10]; Enfield London Borough Council v Sivanandan [2006] EWCA Civ 888 at [5]; Daniels v British Broadcasting Corporation [2010] EWHC 3057 (QB); Chorion plc and others v Lane (unreported, 24 February 1999). 24 The main arguments raised on behalf of......
-
Austin (Mark) v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
...v Swift [1913] 2 KB 304, 311-312 [23] The principles in Jameel may be applied where the defamatory sting is a trivial one, Daniels v BBC [2010] EWHC 3057 or where the publication was only to a very 9 small number of people Hays plc v Hartley [2010] EWHC 1068, Wallis v Meredith [2011] EWHC 7......
-
Dylan Sadler v Antony Joyner
...a breach of conventional etiquette but did not reach the level of seriousness required to be actionable. Similarly in Daniels v BBC [2010] EWHC 3057 (QB) Sharp J. again concluded that minor criticisms of the claimant's performance at work would not be defamatory because the necessary thres......
-
Civil Restraint Orders in Other Courts and Tribunals
...He also referred me to observations in the authorities, such as Sivanandan and also Vaidya at [29]–[33] and (possibly) Daniels v BBC [2010] EWHC 3057 (QB) at [78]–[79] which suggest that the court has in the past considered that Extended CROs, even under the rules, will restrain proceedings......
-
Table of Cases
...NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 1616 8, 71, 90 Courtman v Ludlam and Another [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch) 61, 62, 69, 70, 71 Daniels v BBC [2010] EWHC 3057 (QB) 147 Davies (Maria Ann), In re (1888) 21 QB 236 6, 7 Days Medical Aids Ltd v Pihsiang Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd and Others [2004] EWCA Civ ......