Recent case law only highlights the subjective nature of what constitutes breach of contract
Recent case law has confirmed the level of difficulty encountered when attempting to persuade the courts to intervene at an early stage in trust disciplinary proceedings.
That the courts may intervene where it is deemed appropriate was clearly stated in Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust  UKSC 58, in which Lord Dyson said that where an employer starts a disciplinary process in breach of an express term of the employment contract ‘it is open to the employee to seek an injunction to stop the process and/or to seek an appropriate declaration’.
The courts thus retain their supervisory jurisdiction. Where the action complained of is the referral to a disciplinary panel, Lord Justice Pill stated as follows in Skidmore v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust  ICR 721: ‘I accept that there is a threshold to be crossed, in terms of seriousness, before a decision to refer to a panel can be properly taken.’ …
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Outer Temple Chambers briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Outer Temple Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Outer Temple Chambers
The Supreme Court on 11 March 2015 handed down a unanimous judgment that confirms that the Bolam test does not apply to a doctor’s duty to warn patients of the risks of treatment.
An important judgment has been handed down that deals with the remedies available to members of the IBM Project Waltz scheme.