header-logo header-logo

Surgeon loses bid for £3.8m dismissal damages

21 December 2011
Issue: 7495 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A consultant surgeon dismissed for gross professional and personal misconduct cannot bring a £3.8m claim against an NHS trust for breach of contract regarding the disciplinary hearing, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The justices held, by a majority, that it would be wrong for the courts to allow a claim to be pursued for breach of contract based on the manner of dismissal. Through the unfair dismissal regime, Parliament had already provided an avenue for employees to complain about their employer’s conduct, and such a claim would conflict with and undermine the unfair dismissal regime.

In Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Botham v Ministry of Defence [2011] UKSC 58, Edwards, a trauma and orthopaedic surgeon, dropped unfair dismissal procedures and then issued breach-of-contract proceedings in the High Court.

Edwards’ terms and conditions of employment stated that, in matters of professional misconduct, he would appear before a panel that included a clinician of the same discipline as himself and a legally qualified chairperson. He alleged that, since the disciplinary panel which dealt with his misconduct case included neither of these, it was wrongly constituted, in breach of contract, and that, as a result, it made adverse findings against him which caused him reputational damage.

Rachael Heenan, a partner at DAC Beachcroft, the Trust’s solicitors, says: “The outcome is good news for any employer, regardless of their sector, especially those with contractual disciplinary procedures and high-earning employees whose losses would otherwise exceed the statutory cap for unfair dismissal.

“Had this appeal not been successful, employers would have been continually vulnerable to the possibility of employees trying to get around the compensation cap or time limit in unfair dismissal claims by claiming for a breach of procedure.”

In a claim for unfair dismissal in the employment tribunal, Edwards’ damages would have been limited to a maximum award of £12,000, plus a maximum compensatory award of £68,400.

Issue: 7495 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
In NLJ this week, Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre marks Pro Bono Week by urging lawyers to recognise the emotional toll of pro bono work
Can a lease legally last only days—or even hours? Professor Mark Pawlowski of the University of Greenwich explores the question in this week's NLJ
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
back-to-top-scroll