Daniels v BBC
When deciding whether words relating to someone’s performance at work are defamatory, the courts apply a threshold of seriousness as well as look at what is said and about whom. In Daniels v BBC, the High Court also said that in some instances qualified privilege could apply to feedback from colleagues, because sometimes there could be a duty to provide it.
Basic facts
Mr Daniels was appointed to fill a five-month fixed-term contract as a junior administrative assistant with the BBC in November 2009. However, there were concerns that he had problems interacting with other members of the team and following certain set procedures.
His line manager met with him on 7 January 2010 to discuss three main areas of concern and to explain that his employment was at risk of termination on capability grounds if he did not improve. She set him a number of objectives and explained that she would seek feedback from colleagues before meeting again with him in a couple of weeks.
After a capability meeting on 22 January, the BBC wrote to Mr Daniels on 29 January terminating his contract with one month’s notice. After failed appeal meetings with the BBC, Mr Daniels then issued three libel claims in respect of the feedback from colleagues, arguing it was motivated by malice. His claims were against the BBC and two members of the team in which he worked.
The BBC, in turn, applied to strike-out the claims on the ground (among others) that the words he complained about “were not capable of bearing any meaning defamatory of the Claimant”,.
High Court decision
And the High Court agreed.
It dismissed Mr Daniels’ claim saying that although criticisms of someone’s work could be defamatory, it was “not an abstract question” to decide whether the words used were capable of being defamatory.
In this case, the judge said that the words complained about consisted of statements about trivial errors, a failure to communicate with colleagues, and a procedural point about him sometimes speaking to customers rather than fellow members of his team. In the context of a capability meeting the feedback just pointed to areas in which he needed to improve which was not that unusual when someone had just started a job.
It was therefore “difficult to regard this as a case where the words impute to the Claimant some quality which would be detrimental, or the absence of some quality which is essential to the successful carrying on of his office, profession or trade”.
It said that no ordinary, reasonable person would think less of Mr Daniels personally as a result of what his colleagues said in their feedback, nor could the words adversely reflect on his business or professional reputation in the eyes of reasonable people, even if he had a relevant reputation for this purpose.
The BBC therefore succeeded in striking-out the claims on the ground of meaning alone, but in addition, the Court went on to state that the actions were obviously privileged, and that Mr Daniels’ case on malice was ‘at best weak and equivocal, and at worst… simply speculative nonsense’.
It concluded, therefore, that his claims were ‘totally without merit’.