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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll