Critically evaluate, in relation to the common law duty of care, the Essay

Critically evaluate, in relation to the common law duty of care, the liability of employers for fibers - Essay eccentricThe discussion in this paper shall deal with the liability of ref to the subject only. There is no law which specifically confers the right to demand for a name and address thus there is no mandatory duty to issue one. It is not a matter of right but a mere privilege which whitethorn be stipulated in a contract or agreement. Without any contract, the discretion to give interview lies with the referee however there are instances when the refusal to issue reference is construed as discriminatory that compels the employer to issue one. Assuming the referee voluntarily agrees to issue a reference, it has legal obligation to the subject and the recipient to give an honest, truthful and unclouded account of the information it has in its possession. The award of damages which do not arise from actual physical injury or damage to property is frowned upon (Murphy v. Bre ntwood territorial dominion Council, 1990). This is against public policy and the floodgates arguments (Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd v. Martin & Co. Ltd,1973) where courts will be inundated with gratuitous suits. The exception from this general rule is when mis tether statements are contained in the reference which resulted in economic loss then the aggrieved party may demand compensation for such breach of duty. For duty of care to exist nonetheless the standards enunciated in the leading case of Caparo Industries v. Dickman (1990), must be complied with the injury or damage suffered by the aggrieved party was reasonably foreseeable sufficient proximity or special kin between the parties and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. These elements are mandatory and concurring where the absence of one element negates the existence of duty of care. It is not sufficient that the referee made derogatory remarks that damaged the reputation of the subject it must be shown th at the referee has a special relationship with the subject such as that of an employer and employee or that of university official towards their personnel or students. If the derogatory remarks was relied upon to reject the subjects engagement, the imposition of liability is just, fair and equitable. The case of Spring v. Guardian Assurance (1995), is illustrative. The employer imputed false conduct which became the basis for denying the employees employment which was later discovered to false. The court enjoined employers to purpose utmost diligence in the preparation of reference so as not compromise the economic prospects of subjects and take due care to protect the subjects reputation. The court stated a caveat the referee should exercise due skill and care in the preparation of the reference before making it available to the third party since the recipient accord great immensity on the reference issued. The referee must showcase the subjects skills and expertise to improve t heir employment prospects and not diminish it by imputing sordid personal traits. The value accorded the reference is due to the referees personal observation on the subject and if the subject is not personally known to the referee, the reference should be based on recorded facts. If a mediocre reference with unproven allegations is disseminated to prospective employers contrary to the subjects qualifications warrants the award of damages. The right of the