header-logo header-logo

01 July 2010
Issue: 7424 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

NHS trust—Compromise agreement with ex-employee—Whether agreement ultra vires—Whether trust unjustly enriched if so

Gibb v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 678

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Laws, Sedley and Rimer LJJ, 23 June 2010

For the purposes of unjust enrichment, if everything else is equal there is no principled distinction between a benefit consisting in money paid and a benefit consisting in a claim foregone.

Antony White QC and Oliver Segal (instructed by Thompsons Solicitors) for the claimant. Jane McNeill QC and Michael Ford (instructed by Brachers LLP) for the trust.

The claimant was appointed chief executive of the defendant NHS trust in November 2003.  In 2006 the trust attracted substantial negative publicity due to the outbreak of a “super bug” at hospitals it managed. The healthcare commission investigated the outbreaks. Its final report in late 2007 was highly critical of the trust’s leadership. The trust decided to terminate the claimant’s employment, although her own conduct had not been impugned, in response to the adverse publicity. The parties agreed on a severance payment of £250,000.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll