header-logo header-logo

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

Surgeon loses bid for £3.8m dismissal damages

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll