Cornelius v London Borough Of Hackney

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for permission to appeal an order made by a Deputy High Court Judge striking out the amended statement of claim and ordering the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs. The underlying dispute arises from events dating back prior to June 1992, involving the Applicant's exposure of alleged corrupt irregularities within his former employment, which led to his dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal subsequently found that the dismissal was wrongful and that the Applicant acted properly without improper motive. The current litigation focuses on alleged wrongful acts by the Respondents after June 1992, within the relevant limitation period, following the Applicant's statutory remedies under employment legislation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there is a realistic prospect of success on appeal against the striking out of the amended statement of claim.
2. Whether the Applicant’s claims for negligent mis-statement and misfeasance in public office, based on conduct occurring after June 1992, are arguable causes of action.
3. Whether the alleged conduct falls within established legal principles, including the torts discussed in Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc, Johnson v UNISYS Limited, and Three Rivers DC v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3).
4. The proper approach to costs in relation to the appeal and potential further proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the Applicant’s background as a whistleblower who was wrongfully dismissed and recognized the complexity of the pleadings and causes of action. It noted that many claims were either abandoned or unarguable, such as unlawful conspiracy and interference with contract. The court focused on two main causes of action: negligent mis-statement and misfeasance in public office. It considered the applicability of the Spring principle to the Applicant’s allegations of negligent mis-statement occurring after June 1992, despite the exclusion of defamation claims. Regarding misfeasance, the court assessed whether the Respondents’ employees, as public officials, acted with the requisite bad faith or recklessness. The court emphasized the need to avoid overestimating the prospects of success but concluded there was an arguable case on these grounds warranting consideration by the Court of Appeal. The court also addressed the procedural context of costs, indicating that costs issues would be reconsidered depending on the appeal’s outcome.

Holding and Implications

The court granted permission to appeal on the grounds of negligent mis-statement and misfeasance in public office, concluding that these issues merit consideration by the Court of Appeal.

Permission to appeal granted.

The decision allows the Applicant to pursue an appeal based on arguable claims, but it does not establish new precedent beyond confirming that these claims warrant appellate review. The costs associated with the litigation remain subject to reconsideration depending on the appeal’s success or failure, with potential further submissions permitted.