I thought bad references were illegal?!

JonathanStewart

tomjonesrules wrote: »

You do understand that libel is simply a type of defamation, don't you?

Yes but then why do you get injunctions, gagging orders imposed by courts? Why do you get legally binding references which make no mention of internal issues in the work place?

Again there can be legal reasons for disclosure, but as far as I can see, the issues referred to here aren't covered by that.

fannyadams

SarEl wrote: »

What did your reference actually say? Why wasn't it satisfactory?

OP hasn't seen the reference and was going to look into the 'pay £10 and get a copy' route as posted by LV in post #2 and also by Acc72 in post #10

tomjonesrules

JonathanStewart wrote: »

Yes but then why do you get injunctions, gagging orders imposed by courts? Why do you get legally binding references which make no mention of internal issues in the work place?

Again there can be legal reasons for disclosure, but as far as I can see, the issues referred to here aren't covered by that.

'Gagging orders' relate to the right to privacy, not defamation.

'Legally binding references' tend to be used as a means of compromise, to end the employment relationship without resorting to litigation.

You are confusing very separate issues!

SarEl

JonathanStewart wrote: »

Yes but then why do you get injunctions, gagging orders imposed by courts? Why do you get legally binding references which make no mention of internal issues in the work place?

Again there can be legal reasons for disclosure, but as far as I can see, the issues referred to here aren't covered by that.

The issues referred to here aren't even relevant to that - or anything else you have said. Libel and slander or both part or defamation, and the defence to defamation is that it is true or legitimate opinion. Provided a reference is truthful and not misleading then it is not defamation, and nor is it negligent misstatement.

SarEl

fannyadams wrote: »

OP hasn't seen the reference and was going to look into the 'pay £10 and get a copy' route as posted by LV in post #2 and also by Acc72 in post #10

Thanks - but the question was diected to Oki1875 and not the OP!

JonathanStewart

SarEl wrote: »

The issues referred to here aren't even relevant to that - or anything else you have said. Libel and slander or both part or defamation, and the defence to defamation is that it is true or legitimate opinion. Provided a reference is truthful and not misleading then it is not defamation, and nor is it negligent misstatement.

so this poor person is now suffering because he didn't have an agreed reference, to get him off the hook?

all your (clearly deeply held) opinions on the 'truth' could be brushed aside with a compromised reference?

SarEl

JonathanStewart wrote: »

so this poor person is now suffering because he didn't have an agreed reference, to get him off the hook?

all your (clearly deeply held) opinions on the 'truth' could be brushed aside with a compromised reference?

Do you even know what you are talking about? This is the law. Not kindergarten.

JonathanStewart

SarEl wrote: »

Do you even know what you are talking about? This is the law. Not kindergarten.

---

JonathanStewart

SarEl wrote: »

Do you even know what you are talking about? This is the law. Not kindergarten.

I'm saying that in the eyes of the law, there are reasons why an organisation can be forbidden from disclosing 'the truth' about an employee. That is all.

laganuk

In practical terms if you live within a close-knit society i would think twice about legal recourse as gossip spreads and there is nothing better than bad gossip. Not wanting to put employers on a pedestal but it is highly improbable they would be silly enough to mention protected characteristics (equality stuff) of their employee or make sweeping statements of opinion based on fact. If they keep to the objective facts then their defence is truth.