McBride v The Body Shop International Plc, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, July 10, 2007, [2007] EWHC 1658 (QB)
Linked as:
Extract
McBride v The Body Shop International Plc, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, July 10, 2007, [2007] EWHC 1658 (QB)
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 1658 (QB)
Case No: HQ07X01375 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 10/07/2007Before :THE HON. MR JUSTICE EADY- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The Claimant appeared in person (assisted by Mr Freer)Alexandra Marzec (instructed by Baker & McKenzie) for the DefendantHearing date: 21 June 2007- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentThe Hon. Mr Justice Eady : 1. In this libel action Claire McBride (``the Claimant'') claims damages, including special damages, against The Body Shop International PLC (``the Defendant'') in respect of words published on or about 13 January 2006 in an e-mail from Nicole Farncombe, who was the manager of the Defendant's Gatwick Airport branches, addressed to two other employees, Tessa Boshoff (the regional human resources manager) and Stella Barham (the regional manager). The subject-matter of the e-mail was largely concerned with the conduct of the Claimant, who was at that time also an employee of the Defendant. The litigation was commenced by a claim form dated 25 April 2007 (and, therefore, one of a number of matters I am asked to consider relates to limitation).2. It is necessary, in addressing the context of the publication in question, to have in mind not only its contents but also how it came to be written.3. There are four branches of the Defendant's business at Gatwick and the Claimant had been employed as a sales assistant from August 2005 in one of those branches under the immediate supervision of her line manager Ami Fawcett. It seems that on 12 December 2005 Nicole Farncombe was telephoned by Ami Fawcett in relation to a relatively minor matter concerning a payment (known as a ``paid out'') which had apparently been made by the Claimant out of the branch till, without express authority, to cover some expenses. Ms Farncombe invited the Claimant and Ms Fawcett to a meeting on 16 December 2005 in order to establish the facts. In the interim, the Claimant carried on working as usual.4. The Claimant explained at this meeting that she believed that she had implicit consent from Ms Fawcett to make such a payment even though a manager was not present. According to the evidence of Ms Farncombe, she decided not to suspend the Claimant but merely to advise her that the episode should be treated as a learning experience. The Claimant, on the other hand, contends that she was actually suspended and excluded from work. This was, at any rate, the stance she later took in proceedings before an emplo...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
