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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll