James-Bowen and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] UKSC 40

Court: Supreme Court

Facts: In 2003, four police officers were involved in the arrest of a suspected terrorist who later alleged that the officers had assaulted him. The Commissioner of Police admitted liability in a 2009 settlement, and the officers were acquitted of criminal charges related to the arrest. In 2013, the officers sought compensation from the Commissioner for reputational, economic, and psychiatric damage, based on three claims: (i) an implied retainer with the Commissioner’s legal team, (ii) an assumed duty of care from the Commissioner due to assurances, and (iii) a general duty of care to protect their interests. The claims were struck out in 2015, and the Court of Appeal partially upheld them. The Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the Commissioner of Police owed a duty of care to the officers to protect their reputational and economic interests arising from the legal proceedings and settlement.

Held: The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the Commissioner’s appeal. The court, led by Lord Lloyd-Jones, found no precedent supporting the claim that an implied duty of care existed to protect the officers' reputational and economic interests. It emphasized that a duty of care in negligence must be established incrementally and by analogy with previous decisions.

The court noted that common law generally does not recognize a duty of care to safeguard reputational interests, citing the decision in Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1989], which held that a Chief Constable does not owe such a duty. The judgment also discussed policy considerations, emphasizing that imposing such a duty would not be fair, just, or reasonable given the fundamental differences in interests between employers and employees.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Lloyd-Jones stated, "The common law does not recognize a duty of care in negligence to protect reputational or economic interests of employees in legal proceedings. It is neither fair nor reasonable to impose such a duty on an employer."

💡 LevelUpLaw: James-Bowen v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis reinforces that an employer, including a Chief Constable, does not have a duty of care to protect employees' reputational or economic interests in the context of legal proceedings. The decision highlights the principle that a duty of care must be established by clear precedent and is not typically extended to reputational or economic damages in negligence claims against employers.