Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Maria Joao De Azavedo Camacho v OCS Group UK Limited

[2024] EWHC 1164 (KB)
An employee sued her employer after colleagues made negative statements during a workplace grievance investigation. A lower court dismissed the case, saying the employee implicitly agreed to such statements. The High Court disagreed, stating that simply agreeing to a grievance procedure doesn't mean you automatically agree to everything said during it. The employee’s case can now proceed.

Key Facts

  • Maria Joao de Azevedo Camacho (Claimant) appealed the summary dismissal of her defamation, harassment, and unlawful means conspiracy claims against OCS Group UK Limited (Defendant).
  • The claims stemmed from statements made by colleagues during an internal grievance investigation against the Claimant.
  • The Deputy Master dismissed the defamation claim based on the *Friend v Civil Aviation Authority* principle of implied consent to republication of defamatory statements during disciplinary proceedings.
  • The Claimant's employment contract stated she was 'subject to' the company's disciplinary and grievance procedures, but these procedures were not part of the contract.
  • The grievance investigation led to disciplinary proceedings and the Claimant's dismissal.
  • The Claimant argued that *Friend* only applies to disciplinary, not grievance, procedures.

Legal Principles

Implied consent to republication of defamatory statements during disciplinary proceedings.

Friend v Civil Aviation Authority [1998] IRLR 253

Defence of consent in defamation requires express or implied consent to the specific publication, not just participation in a procedure.

Various case law including Chapman v Ellesmere [1932] 2 KB 431, Gatley on Libel and Slander, Clerk & Lindsell on Torts

The scope of consent in Friend is limited; it does not extend to gratuitous or irrelevant publications.

Crossland v Wilkinson Hardware Stores Limited [2005] EWHC 481, Parris v Ajayi [2021] EWHC 285 (QB)

Outcomes

The appeal was allowed.

The court found the Deputy Master erred in applying the *Friend* principle to the grievance procedure. The Claimant's agreement to the grievance procedure did not imply consent to defamatory statements made by colleagues during the investigation. The court held there was no unanswerable defence of consent.

The Claimant's application for permission to amend the claim form to proceed solely against the Defendant was allowed.

The defamation claim could proceed, based on the oral publications by Mr Meite and Ms Mancera, while the unlawful means conspiracy claim was dismissed.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.