Station Road, Sidcup

How can we help?

Please fill in this form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Please enter your name
Please enter your email address
Please enter your telephone number
Please enter a question
Please let us know how you heard about us
Please enter the verification code

We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy

Writing a Job Reference? It's Important to Choose Your Words Carefully

Business owners and managers tend to view writing job references as an important but relatively routine task. However, the need to choose words carefully – and to take professional advice where necessary – was underlined by a High Court ruling in a libel case (Smith and Another v Surridge and Others).

After moving on from one secondary school, two teachers received conditional offers to work at another. The specialist recruitment agency through which they had found their prospective new jobs requested a reference from the school.

The reference included the words 'I would like to inform you that there were some safeguarding issues during their time at (the school)'. The teachers denied that there were any such issues and claimed that the reference resulted in the withdrawal of their job offers. They launched proceedings, seeking damages for alleged libel, misuse of private information and negligent misstatement.

In considering the precise meaning of the words as a preliminary issue, the Court noted that the reference was formal correspondence between two organisations that were used to dealing with pre-employment checks. The meaning of the words fell to be judged through the eyes of a hypothetical reasonable reader.

The Court acknowledged that safeguarding is a broad concept. Yet, in the context of a school reference, it was reasonable to assume that the focus of safeguarding is on the protection of children from harm or the risk of harm. However, a reasonable reader of the reference would not have jumped to the conclusion that the 'issues' mentioned related to abuse or maltreatment.

The use of the word 'some' did not indicate that there was more than one issue in respect of each teacher. However, the wording of the reference was clear and a reasonable reader would not have interpreted it as merely suggesting that there were safeguarding allegations or concerns.

The Court found that the reference's meaning was that each teacher did something whilst working at the school that gave rise to a safeguarding issue – something that either caused harm to a child or placed a child at risk of harm. That meaning was defamatory at common law. It was agreed that the words complained of were a statement of fact, rather than opinion.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.