This month we had a glimpse into the world of high stakes gambling and a reminder of the risks an employer can face when giving a reference.
In Playboy Club London Limited v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SPA, an Italian bank gave a reference to the Playboy Club casino in Mayfair. The reference was in respect of one of the bank’s customers and assured the casino that he was “trustworthy up to the extent of £1.6 million in any one week”. On the strength of this statement, the casino allowed the customer credit of over £1 million.
It turned out that the customer had never held any money with the bank and the reference had been sent by a bank employee who was not authorised to give them.
The court found that the bank was negligent for providing an inaccurate reference. It did not matter that the bank employee did not have authority: the casino was entitled to rely on her apparent authority and she was acting in the course of her employment so the bank was liable.
Disputes over employment references are fairly common. Typically an individual hands in their notice, eager to start a new job, but then finds that the job offer has been withdrawn because their references aren’t satisfactory. They cannot withdraw their resignation (unless their employer agrees) and they no longer have a new job lined up. With the prospect of no income on the horizon, the individual will be assessing their losses and considering the merits of a claim against the business that provided the reference.
Here are five pointers to bear in mind when it comes to references:
If you would like to discuss these issues or you would like help introducing a reference policy, please contact one of the employment team on 020 7234 0200 or email employment@waterfront.law
Since the draft Employment Rights Bill 2024 was published in October, we have had various requests from employer clients asking us what they need to be doing to do to prepare for the proposed changes to employment law
If you are a football fan and interested in employment law, you will no doubt have been eagerly awaiting the outcome of Benjamin Mendy’s claim that his former club, Manchester City (“City”), unlawfully made deductions from his wages. As Employment Judge Dunlop (“EJ Dunlop”) said: “I am fairly…
…Following an appeal by USDAW, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and granted the injunction sought by USDAW…
From 26 October 2024, employers will be subject to a new proactive duty to take “reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment of all their employees in the course of their employment