John Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1098 (QB) |
| Date | 03 May 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: TLQ/12/0527 |
[2013] EWHC 1098 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Cranston
Case No: TLQ/12/0527
Jane McNeill QC and Katherine Howells (instructed by Buss Murton) for the Claimant
Alan Payne (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 11-21 February and 11 March 2013
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.
I INTRODUCTION
In June 2008 the claimant, John Yapp, was removed from his position as HM High Commissioner to Belize. The decision was taken formally by Susan Le Jeune d'Allegeershecque, presently HM Ambassador to Austria, but at the time director of Human Resources at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ("the FCO"). As will be seen Ms Le Jeune acted along with others, in particular Christopher Wood, at the time director of Americas at the FCO and until recently Minister and Deputy Head of Mission, British Embassy, Beijing. In this action the claimant's case is that his removal and what followed were in breach of his contract of employment and in breach of the FCO's duty of care to him. Consequent to the claimant's removal there was an inquiry, which considered allegations made against him of sexual misconduct and of the bullying and harassment of High Commission staff. The inquiry was conducted by Michael Gifford, at present HM Ambassador to North Korea. He acquitted the claimant of the allegations of sexual misconduct; these were baseless. However, he concluded that there had been some ill-treatment of staff. It is not my role to review the latter finding.
II BACKGROUND
The claimant and his appointment to Belize
The claimant joined the FCO in 1971 and made steady progress through the ranks, with a number of overseas postings. In his evidence, which I accept, the claimant spoke of his commitment to the FCO and to the core values of the Diplomatic Service, set out in its Code of Ethics: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. Along with the Code are the General Principles of Conduct for members of the diplomatic service, including the obligation to treat all colleagues with respect and not to subject any member of staff to harassment, bullying or victimisation.
In 1998 the claimant was appointed as High Commissioner in the Seychelles. An appraisal in 2001-2002 recounted that he had found the post in a state of drift but left it in 2002 in much better shape. During his tenure there the claimant dismissed two locally engaged staff, who complained. There was an inquiry which painted a picture of unsatisfactory management, with some instances of bullying behaviour and harassment. As a result, in early September 2001 the FCO wrote to the claimant strongly recommending that he attend management courses with a view to improving his performance. While not accepting the report's finding the claimant attended some courses. At the time the claimant's deputy, Jacqui Currie, defended the claimant against the complainants ("very supportive of local staff") and in evidence for this trial ("the two ladies…hid their own shortcomings behind their malicious accusations"). The countersigning officer to the 2001-2002 appraisal took this into account, as well as the difficulties the claimant inherited at post and the improvements he achieved there. He gave the claimant a strong C assessment and was positive about his future in the FCO.
After the Seychelles posting the claimant had a number of short term assignments. In early 2003 he agreed with "job options" assessment that his next posting might be his last and that he would like to run his own mission. In 2004 he became deputy head of the South Asia group in the FCO. His appraisals during this period were positive, including his relationship with colleagues. He was specially praised for his handling of the investigation of a complaint by a locally engaged staff member against a High Commissioner and fostering of two staff members with particular problems. He had improved the office environment, taken steps to attract more diverse staff and been a conscientious manager, albeit that some staff found his listening skills and communication style difficult. The countersigning officer to the claimant's 2006 appraisal, Tom (later Sir Tom) Phillips, thought it right to highlight his conscientious and professional management skills and his unselfish working to bring on the team as a whole.
Against strong competition the claimant was appointed UK High Commissioner to Belize, taking up his appointment in August 2007. The Residence was being refurbished at the time so that the claimant had to live in temporary accommodation for the first four months. That hampered his introduction to Belize. Relations with the deputy High Commissioner, David Spires, were bad from the outset, although Mr Spires' tour in Belize was due to end in August 2008. The FCO was aware of the tension.
The claimant quickly established a good relationship with Belize politicians and the business community. In a witness statement for the trial, the Prime Minister of Belize, Hon. Dean Barrow, explained that he met the claimant shortly after his appointment as High Commissioner.
"In my view based on my experiences during my time as Foreign Minister and as Prime Minister, the claimant was one of the best British High Commissioners we have had in Belize. I found [him] to be a consummate diplomat: intelligent, well-informed and an entertaining host."
Mr Barrow added that the Government of Belize had found the claimant a willing and committed partner in the promotion of good UK-Belize relations and that he was seen by the Belize Government as enhancing the image and reputation of the British in Belize. That positive view was echoed in a witness statement of Richard Price, a British citizen resident and doing business in Belize for over a quarter of a century, a founder member of the Belize — British Chamber of Commerce and a British High Commission consular warden. In his witness statement another consular warden, and a senior justice of the peace, James Jammohamed, was equally supportive of the claimant's role as High Commissioner.
The Evans Report
In late April 2008 Peter Evans visited the region and conducted a so-called pastoral visit to the High Commission in Belize, as well as the Consulate General in Miami and the Embassy in the Dominican Republic. Mr Evans has been the human resources manager for the FCO Directorate General for Defence and Intelligence (which includes the Americas) since July 200It was a routine visit and there was nothing in the feedback from the High Commission in Belize to cause particular concern, although there was an issue with the claimant's strained relationship with his deputy, Mr Spires. Before the visit Mr Evans spoke to Matthew Forbes and Dr Liz Kane. Mr Forbes was the claimant's head of section, covering Mexico, Central America, Cuba and Hispaniola. Dr Kane was the claimant's immediate line manager.
Mr Evans' report, dated 7 May 2008, was marked "Personal. Staff in Confidence". It was sent to Ms Le Jeune, as director of Human Resources, and copied to the Director of Defence and Intelligence, to Mr Wood, as director of Americas, and to Mr Rankin, deputy director of Human Resources. In her evidence Ms Le Jeune very fairly accepted that the report gave an unbalanced picture, which she should have detected at the time. Despite the limited distribution Dr Kane obtained a copy of the report. The claimant was never given a copy until 24 July 2008, after he was removed as HM High Commissioner to Belize.
The report covered two pages. In accordance with his usual practice Mr Evans did not retain the notes he had made to write it. At the outset of the report was a summary: "Arrogant management style. Non communication with [Mr Spires]. Informal allegations of bullying. Next steps?" The details of the report gave attention to the relationship between the claimant and Mr Spires. It explained that under the previous High Commissioner Mr Spires had been permitted to run the post himself. The relationship with the claimant "had slipped into one of non-communication". In his evidence before me Mr Evans accepted that there was, in fact, partial communication between the two. The report continued that Mr Evans had encouraged the claimant to offer the olive branch and that meetings had taken place to find some common ground. Mr Evans told me that subsequent to his visit the relationship between the claimant and Mr Spires had improved.
As anticipated in the summary Mr Evans' report then asserted: "Local staff referred to his arrogant manner and to his "own agenda"." In the same paragraph there was a reference to the claimant having "apparently purloined" furniture destined for the executive assistant's house and the effective barring, on security grounds, of the International Women's Association from using the High Commission's club facilities. During his visit Mr Evans had given the claimant coaching on teamwork and managing staff and left him some basic material on both subjects.
In his evidence Mr Evans accepted that Mr Spires had briefed him about which staff to interview (although the claimant had suggested that he speak to staff at the Residence); that there were no curbs on what he could do during his visit; that none of the staff told him that they had been advised about what to tell him; that he could not recall precisely which staff he had interviewed; and that some staff were supportive of the claimant although he did not make a numerical count of which were critical and which supportive. Mr Evans also told...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mrs K Against Chief Constable Of The Police Service Of Scotland
...cases are relied on by the pursuer: Taylor v Rover [1966] 1 WLR 1491 and Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office at first instance, [2013] EWHC 1098 (QB) at para 145. [100] I do not accept that the propositions set out by the Lord Ordinary at para [119] apply to a case which depends on estab......
-
Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office
...B3/2013/1698 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM The High Court, Queen's Bench Division Mr Justice Cranston [2013] EWHC 1098 (QB) [2013] EWHC 2440 (QB) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL David Platt QC and Alan Payne (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for th......
-
Mrs K Against Chief Constable Of The Police Service Of Scotland
...of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 WLR 1607 p er Lord Slynn of Hadley 1610 c-g. 25 [2000] IRLR 703 26 [2003] EWCA Civ 676 27 [2013] EWHC 1098 (QB) 38 [72] In Gogay (supra) the issue was whether the defendant local authority had acted reasonably in suspending the claimant from a post in a ......
-
Mr John Lu v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
...process in question. As Cranston J. observed at paragraph 82 of his judgment in Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2013] EWHC 1098 (QB) fair treatment is "fact sensitive and its requirements turn very much on context". Patient Consent 107 The position in relation to the information to ......