Spring v. Guardian Assurance Plc. et al., (1994) 174 N.R. 164 (HL)

• Case Date: July 07, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 174 N.R. 164 (HL)

Spring v. Guardian Assurance Plc. (1994), 174 N.R. 164 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Spring (A.P.) (appellant) v. Guardian Assurance Plc. and others (respondents)

Indexed As: Spring v. Guardian Assurance Plc. et al.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Goff of Chieveley,

Lord Lowry, Lord Slynn of Hadley and

Lord Woolf

July 7, 1994.

Summary:

Spring was employed by the Corinium company as sales director and office man­ager. Corinium were agents for the sale of insurance policies issued by Guardian As­surance. Spring was appointed a company representative of Guardian Assurance. Subsequently, Corinium was sold to Guard­ian Assurance. Guardian Assurance termi­nated Spring's employment. Spring attempted to become an agent for Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society Plc. Scottish Ami­cable applied to Guardian Assurance for a reference regarding Spring. The reference provided by Guardian was highly prejudicial to Spring in that it stated that "he is a man of little or no integrity and could not be regarded as honest". On the basis of Guard­ian's letter of reference, Scottish Amicable as well as two other insurance companies declined to employ Spring. Spring submitted that the information set forth in the letter was erroneous and sued Guardian and three others in malicious falsehood, breach of contract and negligence.

The trial court allowed Spring's claim in negligence. Guardian et al. appealed.

The Court of Appeal of England, in a decision reported at [1993] 2 All E.R. 273; [1993] 1 C.R. 412, allowed the appeal. Spring appealed on the issues of negligence and breach of contract.

The House of Lords allowed the appeal on the ground of negligence.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2987

Defences - Qualified privilege - Employ­ment relationship - Guardian Assurance terminated Spring's employment - Spring's prospective employer requested a letter of reference from Guardian - The letter provided questioned Spring's honesty and merit - Spring submitted that the letter was erroneous - Spring sued Guardian in negligence and for breach of contract - Guardian submitted that any action lay in defamation and that the defence of qual­ified privilege applied because there was no malice - The House of Lords allowed Spring's action in negligence - A majority of their Lordships would have also allowed the action based on a breach of an implied term of Spring's contract of employment with Guardian - Lord Goff of Chieveley would have allowed the action based on the application of the Hedley Byrne prin­ciple.

Master and Servant - Topic 1151

Contract of hiring (employment contract) - Implied terms - General - Letter of ref­erence upon leaving - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2987 ].

Torts - Topic 38

Negligence - Standard of care - Employers (master and servant) - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2987 ].

Torts - Topic 80

Negligence - Duty of care - Concurrent liability - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2987 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 101; [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), consd. [para. 8].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R. 492 (H.L.), consd. [para. 8].

Yeu et al. v. Hong Kong (Attorney Gen­eral), [1988] A.C. 175; 82 N.R. 321; [1987] 3 W.L.R. 776; [1987] 2 All E.R. 705 (P.C.), consd. [para. 8].

Rondel v. Worsley, [1969] 1 A.C. 191; [1967] 3 All E.R. 993 (H.L.), dist. [para. 8].

Hill Estate v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, [1989] A.C. 53; 102 N.R. 241 (H.L.), dist. [para. 8].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135; [1974] 2 W.L.R. 282; [1974] 1 All E.R. 662 (H.L.), dist. [para. 10].

Lawton v. B.O.C. Transhield Ltd., [1987] 2 All E.R. 608, dist. [para. 12].

Bell-Booth Group Ltd. v. Attorney Gen­eral, [1989] 3 N.Z.L.R. 148 (C.A.), dist. [para. 13].

Mortensen v. Laing, [1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 282, dist. [para. 13].

South Pacific Manufacturing Co. v. New Zealand Security Consultants & Investi­gations Ltd. - see Mortensen v. Laing.

Balfour v. Attorney General, [1991] 1 N.Z.L.R. 519, consd. [para. 14].

Downsview Nominees Ltd. et al. v. First City Corp. et al., [1993] A.C. 295; 148 N.R. 47 (P.C.), consd. [para. 15].

Mutual Life and Citizens' Assurance Co. v. Evatt, [1971] A.C. 793; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 23; [1971] 1 All E.R. 150 (P.C.), dist. [para. 33].

Foaminol Laboratories Ltd. v. British Artid Plastics Ltd., [1941] 2 All E.R. 393, consd. [para. 41].

Cooke Sons & Co. v. New River Governor & Co. (1888), 38 Ch. D. 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Chaplin v. Hicks, [1911] 2 K.B. 786; [1911-13] All E.R. Rep. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Whiteley v. Adams (1863), 15 C.B.N.S. 392; 143 E.R. 838, refd to. [para. 66].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562, refd to. [para. 74].

Caparo Industries v. Dickman et al., [1990] 2 A.C. 605; 108 N.R. 81; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 358; [1990] 1 All E.R. 568 (H.L.), consd. [para. 74].

Ministry of Housing and Local Govern­ment v. Sharp, [1970] 2 Q.B. 223; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 802; [1970] 1 All E.R. 1009 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Smith v. Bush, [1990] 1 A.C. 831; 104 N.R. 355; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 790; [1989] 2 All E.R. 514 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 74].

Harris v. Wyre Forest District Council - see Smith v. Bush.

Peabody Donation Fund Governors v. Parkinson (Sir Lindsay) & Co., [1985] A.C. 210; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 953; [1984] 3 All E.R. 529 (H.L.), consd. [para. 75].

Ship Moorcock (1889), 14 P.D. 64 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

Liverpool City Council v. Irwin, [1977] A.C. 239 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 102].

Scally and Others v. Southern Health and Social Services Board and Another, [1992] 1 A.C. 294, consd. [para. 112].

Statutes Noticed:

Financial Services Act, 1986 (U.K.), sect. 44 [para. 2].

Financial Services Act, Lautro Rules, 1988, (U.K.), rule 1.2 [para. 2]; rule 3.5(1), 3.5(2) [paras. 3, 35, 114]; schedule 2 [para. 96].

Lautro Rules, 1988 (U.K.) - see Financial Services Act, Lautro Rules, 1988 (U.K.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Charlesworth and Percy on Negligence (8th Ed.), para. 10-06 [para. 112].

Demopoulos, Andrew, Misleading Refer­ences and Qualified Privilege (1988), 104 L.Q.R. 191, p. 194 [para. 92].

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free­doms, article 10 [para. 52].

McGregor on Damages (14th Ed. 1980), paras. 276 to 278 [para. 58].

Counsel:

Bernard Livesey, Q.C., and Witold Pawlak, for the appellant;

David Eady, Q.C., and Gerard Clarke, for the respondents.

Agents:

Bevans, for the appellant;

Clifford Chance, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on November 29- 30 and December 1, 1993, at London, England, before Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lowry, Lord Slynn of Hadley and Lord Woolf of the House of Lords.

On July 7, 1994, the decision of the House of Lords was given and the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 19;

Lord Goff of Chieveley - see paragraphs 20 to 45;

Lord Lowry - see paragraphs 46 to 62;

Lord Slynn of Hadley - see paragraphs 63 to 106;

Lord Woolf - see paragraphs 107 to 149.