Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Case lawRecruitment & retentionReferences

Dike v Rickman and another

by Personnel Today 10 Jan 2006
by Personnel Today 10 Jan 2006

Unfavourable references
Dike v Rickman and another, Queens Bench Division, 22 November 2005

Facts Mr Dike, an independent financial adviser, was offered a job subject to a satisfactory reference. His previous company provided a reference which stated, among other things, that Dike was “a very difficult person with whom to work. We shall not be sorry to lose his services.”

Subsequently, the prospective employer withdrew its offer of employment and Dike sued his previous company for breach of contract and negligence in giving the unfavourable reference. The company argued that the reference was true to the best of its knowledge and belief, and was not negligently given.

Decision The claims were dismissed. Dike took exception to a number of statements in the reference, but the judge found them to be true.
In relation to the particular claim that Dike was difficult to work with, the judge acknowledged that identifying particular incidents to illustrate such a claim could appear to be a catalogue of the trivial. However, in this case, the comment was found to be justified.

Comment This case highlights that when it comes to references, the truth is always fair, however unwelcome. Generally, an employer is not obliged to provide a reference. Employers should be aware that refusing to provide a reference or giving an adverse reference in certain circumstances may lead to claims of post-employment discrimination.

When giving a reference, employers owe a duty of care to the employee and the prospective employer. A reference must be true, accurate and fair and it must not give an unfair or misleading impression overall.

Avatar
Personnel Today

previous post
Compass adds £1m to chiefs’ pensions
next post
Coastguards call for better training at sea

You may also like

Maya Forstater wins belief discrimination case over gender-critical...

6 Jul 2022

More government support to help over 50s back...

5 Jul 2022

Christian doctor loses transgender pronoun case, but beliefs...

29 Jun 2022

Staff shortages affecting business growth at three in...

29 Jun 2022

Green jobs: are there shoots of growth on...

29 Jun 2022

Hire quality vs speed: Finding the perfect balance...

29 Jun 2022

White-hot recruitment market? William Tincup talks to Oven-Ready...

24 Jun 2022

Long Covid: what tribunal’s disability ruling means for...

23 Jun 2022

Three in 10 workers’ skill sets not being...

23 Jun 2022

Bias stopping STEM professionals returning after career break

23 Jun 2022
  • The ultimate guide to payroll for small businesses PROMOTED | You’ve started a business that has expanded to the point of requiring more staff to meet demand. Congratulations!...Read more
  • NSPCC revamps its learning strategy with child wellbeing at its heart PROMOTED | The NSPCC’s mission is to prevent abuse and neglect...Read more
  • Diversity versus inclusion: Why the difference matters PROMOTED | It’s possible for an environment to be diverse, but not inclusive...Read more
  • Five steps for organisations across the globe to become more skills-driven PROMOTED | The shift in the world of work has been felt across the globe...Read more
  • The future of workforce development PROMOTED | Northumbria University and partners share insight...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+