header-logo header-logo

28 November 2018
Issue: 7819 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Unfair dismissal led to £1m award

A former NHS employee has been awarded £1m compensation after being unfairly dismissed following an incident in a hospital car park.

The claim, before Judge Sage at London (South) Employment Tribunal, Croydon (Hastings v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Case No: 2300394/2016) was brought by Richard Hastings, a former IT manager at the Trust. Hastings was accused of assault in 2015 after attempting to note down a delivery van’s registration number and to defend himself when racially abused and assaulted by the delivery driver. 

Hastings called hospital security for help but no record of the call was logged and nobody came to his aid, although the security office confirmed they had received the call. He was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct.

However, the tribunal found the disciplinary processes of the hospital trust were biased and discriminatory. Failings included a difference in treatment between the contractors in the delivery van and Hastings, a British man of Caribbean descent, whose evidence was shown to have been treated with distrust and disbelief. The tribunal found Hastings to be an honest witness, while identifying inconsistencies and flaws in the opposing evidence.

Hastings was represented by Louise Brown, solicitor, and Carole Spencer, paralegal, at Excello Law. Brown said: ‘The tribunal found that the Trust's initial investigation into Mr Hastings' suspension was “fundamentally flawed” and served only to support the organisation's bias towards our client.

‘The substantial damages awarded by the tribunal reflect the significant loss of Mr Hastings’ pension rights following his dismissal and serve as a timely reminder to employers with final salary schemes in place that a failure to follow fair, unbiased and thorough disciplinary procedures, that are not tainted with discrimination, can result in huge compensation awards.’

Issue: 7819 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll