London Borough of Croydon v Dodsworth & Ors, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, September 08, 2017, [2017] EWHC 2257 (QB)

Issuing Organization:Queen's Bench Division
Actores:London Borough of Croydon v Dodsworth & Ors
Resolution Date:September 08, 2017
 
FREE EXCERPT

Case No: HQ17X03134

Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2257 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 8 September 2017

Before :

MR JUSTICE LAVENDER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jane Phillips (instructed by Gowling WLG (UK) LLP) for the Claimant

The Second Defendant in person and for the Third Defendant

Hearing date: 6 September 2017

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENTMr Justice Lavender:

  1. On Wednesday 6 September 2017 I heard an application by the Claimant, the London Borough of Croydon, for the continuation of an injunction. I held the hearing in private. I made the injunction, but said that I would give my reasons in public. I now do so.

  2. The Claimant's schools include Red Gates School, Farnborough Avenue, South Croydon CR2 8HD (``the School''). The First Defendant, Mia Dodsworth, was the headmistress of the School from 1 September 2016. She gave notice of resignation on 28 April 2017. She left the School premises on 30 June 2017. She was on ``garden leave'' until her employment ceased on 31 August 2017. The Second Defendant, Devika Pauline Lambert, is an educational advocate and provides consultancy services. The Third Defendant, Changing Lives Now Limited, is a company owned and controlled by the Second Defendant.

  3. The First and Second Defendants had, and have, some concerns about aspects of the treatment of children at the School, relating to what are known as safeguarding issues. It is not relevant for me to go into detail or to express any opinion about the merits or otherwise of those concerns. The First and Second Defendants have spoken to the Claimant about their concerns. The Second Defendant, at least, was not satisfied with the responses received. Again, I express no opinion about the merits of that issue. The Claimant's position is that advice and additional support were provided to the School, that external safeguarding audits were conducted which did not make negative findings and that a further global review of safeguarding issues is currently under way.

  4. I mention these issues because they form the context for the actions complained of by the Claimant. In July/August 2017, the First Defendant accessed her work email account, forwarded various emails to her personal email address, and then forwarded them again to the Second Defendant. By this means, and perhaps...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL