Serious irregularities in a disciplinary process may justify an injunction
As Lord Hodge said in this case, it is not generally appropriate for the courts to intervene to remedy minor irregularities in the course of the disciplinary proceedings between employer and employee. However, where the irregularities in the process are particularly serious, whether taken on their own or cumulatively, the courts may step in and grant an injunction, rendering it unlawful for the employer to proceed with its disciplinary procedure (West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra).
The claimant was employed by the trust as a consultant forensic psychiatrist. Shortly after her appointment, problems emerged in her relationship with her clinical team. In dealing with those concerns, the claimant’s line manager took advice from the trust’s HR director. Further allegations subsequently came to light that the claimant had breached patient confidentiality when travelling by train in the company of another doctor. It was alleged that the claimant had discussed an incident involving a patient in a secure unit, read a medical report on a patient whose name and personal details could be clearly identified and, on another occasion, dictated patient reports. The trust suspended the claimant and initiated its disciplinary procedure.
The trust’s medical director took on the role of ‘case manager’ and, in line with the trust’s disciplinary procedure, appointed an independent doctor from another trust as the ‘case investigator’. At the outset of the disciplinary process, the claimant expressed concerns that the trust’s HR director (who had previously advised her line manager in relation to the problems within her clinical team) should not be involved in the disciplinary investigation. The trust’s solicitors wrote to the claimant’s solicitors and undertook that the HR director would take no part in the process. However, unknown to the claimant at the time, the trust’s HR director did then review the case investigator’s report and made significant changes to it, which had the effect of stiffening the criticism of the claimant…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Addleshaw Goddard briefing.
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 Addleshaw Goddard
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Addleshaw Goddard
InCredit — new rules on credit broking fees and financial promotions; FCA webpage on rules for loan-based crowdfunding platforms; CML responds on FPC direction powers
This edition includes new rules on credit broking fees, the Q3 SME lending stats and the European Banking Authority’s thoughts on credit institutions.
InCredit – FCA structural changes; speech by CEO of Competition & Markets Authority; PRA update on implementing BRRD; and more
Addleshaw Goddard’s weekly publication provides information on current retail finance issues, regulatory and legislative developments, market watch and ASA adjudications.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
Could Slater & Gordon achieve its stated aim of becoming a top consumer brand by acquiring Pannone?