header-logo header-logo

22 July 2010 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7427 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Let me be the judge

Was Rose Gibb’s final settlement irrationally generous? Nicholas Dobson reports

When the Court of Appeal on 23 June 2010 looked at the law, facts and circumstances surrounding the severance of Rose Gibb, former chief executive of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, what it saw was quite different from the view taken on 28 April 2009 by Treacy J in the Administrative Court. For while Treacy J had seen the £250K severance settlement as “irrationally generous”, Sedley LJ did not “on its face” consider this to be “outlandish compensation for the arbitrary termination of a career” which Gibb was unlikely to be able to resume or resurrect.(Rose Gibb v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 678, [2010] All ER (D) 229 (Jun)).

Background

Gibb was dismissed by her employer NHS Trust because of an impending report from the Healthcare Commission which was to be highly critical of trust leadership. The report followed outbreaks in 2006 of the C difficile super bug at hospitals managed by the trust which

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

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Firm enhances advisory capability with strategic risk specialist hire

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Insurance and reinsurance specialist joins policyholder disputes practice as partner

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll