The disciplinary code for doctors employed by the NHS provides different procedures cases involving allegations of ‘professional conduct’ or ‘personal conduct.’ The first would involve a more judicial process, and the second a more informal disciplinary process. The allegations were of having misled others both patients and authorities, and had been treated as personal conduct. The CA had decided that it was properly classified as professional misconduct.
Held: No public law considerations applied. The Trust made the decision, but must do so within the contract. Here, the decision was clearly flawed since the acts complained of were part of the claimant’s professional conduct. Acts committed as part of a professional practice were to distinguished from acts for which the professional practice provided opportunity.
Lord Steyn said: ‘It is common ground . . that the questions before the House must be resolved within the framework of the contract between Mr Skidmore and the trust. That is so despite the fact that a public body is involved. Prima facie therefore the position is as follows. The trust is entitled to decide what disciplinary route should be followed. That decision must, however, comply with the terms of the contract. If a non-conforming decision is taken and acted upon, there is a breach of contract resulting in the usual remedies. The only escape from this position would be if it could be shown that the parties agreed upon wording in their contract making it clear that the employer’s decision would be final thereby excluding the role of the court except, of course, in cases of bad faith or possibly the absence of reasonable grounds for the decision. There is no such provision in the present contract. It does, of course, provide that ‘It is for the authority to decide under which category a case falls’. This provision merely states the obvious: the trust must take the initial decision to commence the appropriate disciplinary procedure. It is, however, quite insufficient to exclude the normal consequences of a failure to follow the agreed contractual procedures. If there has been a breach by the trust in adopting the wrong procedure, Mr Skidmore is entitled to appropriate relief.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote
Citations:
[2003] UKHL 27, Times 23-May-2003, Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2003] Lloyds Rep Med 369, (2003) 73 BMLR 209, [2003] ICR 721, [2003] IRLR 445, [2003] 3 All ER 292
Links:
Statutes:
Department of Health Circular HC (90)9
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Skidmore v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust CA 15-Jan-2002
The appellant was a doctor accused of lying to a patient about the details of an operation. He appealed a decision dismissing him.
Held: Such an allegation was an allegation of professional misconduct, and should have been dealt with as such, . .
Approved – Dr Mohammed Saeed v Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust CA 20-Dec-2000
Where disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against an employee who might be subject to alternative contractual and professional complaints procedures, the employer must look to the contract to decide which procedure was to be followed. If the . .
Cited – Chatterjee v City and Hackney Community Services NHS Trust ChD 1998
Unless there was some bad faith or other unreasonableness it was for the employer Health authority to categorise the conduct of which complaint was made about a doctor as either personal or professional. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health, Ex parte Guirguis CA 1990
The secretary of state did not have jurisdiction to intervene in disciplinary proceedings to say whether a doctor had properly been dismissed where the allegation was of personal rather than professional misconduct. . .
Cited – Kramer v South Bedforshire Health Care Trust ChD 16-Oct-1995
It was for the Trust employer to decide which kind of disciplinary proceedings to institute. Absent bad faith or Wednesbury unreasonableness, the employer’s decision on categorisation was final. There can be no reason otherwise to include in the . .
Cited – Niarchos (London) Ltd v Shell Tankers Ltd 1961
. .
Cited – West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd (The Glacier Bay) CA 26-Oct-1995
An agreement giving to a ‘sole judge’ the power to make a final decision was effective, and there was no appeal from his decision. The defendant’s decision in his capacity as Convention administrator was as a final arbiter and was unreviewable.
Cited – R E Brown and others v GIO Insurance Limited CA 6-Feb-1998
A reinsurance contact provided for an excess and limit of liability to be calculated on the basis of ‘each and every loss and/or series of losses arising out of one event.’ It also provided that ‘The Reassured shall be the sole judge as to what . .
Cited – Bhanot v South West London and St George’s Mental Hospital NHS Trust ChD 2000
The court considered its jurisdiction to intervene in disciplinary proceedings against a doctor, where the Trust had decided the allegation was of personal misconduct.
Held: This was an action for breach of contract and what the court was . .
At EAT – F D Skidmore v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust EAT 22-Feb-2001
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Skidmore v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust CA 15-Jan-2002
The appellant was a doctor accused of lying to a patient about the details of an operation. He appealed a decision dismissing him.
Held: Such an allegation was an allegation of professional misconduct, and should have been dealt with as such, . .
Cited – Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust QBD 31-Jul-2009
The claimant, a consultant surgeon had been subject to disciplinary proceedings by his employer. They were however conducted in a manner which breached his contract. The GMC had summarily dismissed the same allegations. The claimant now appealed . .
Cited – Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust CA 26-May-2010
The claimant, a consultant doctor, sought damages saying that his employer had failed to follow the contract when disciplining and dismissing him. The GMC had dismissed as unfounded the allegation on which the dismissal was based. He sought damages . .
Cited – Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust QBD 1-Aug-2011
The claimant who had been dismissed by the defendant, asked the court to find that the defendant had failed to meet its contractual obligations as to the procedure to be followed, and that therefore the court declare the dismissal void.
Held: . .
Cited – Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust SC 14-Dec-2011
The claimant had been employed as consultant surgeon. He had been dismissed in a manner inconsistent with the extress terms of his employment contract. He sought common law damages for the manner of his dismissal. The employer appealed.
Held: . .
Cited – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust EAT 18-Mar-2011
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Disciplinary and grievance procedure
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
(1) An employee who has been dismissed because of the . .
Cited – Charles Stanley and Co Ltd v Adams QBD 19-Jul-2013
The claimant stock broking firm sought to recover its uninsured losses after having paid out for what was said to have been negligent advice by the respondent, a self-employed broker working for them.
Held: The power to recover such losses . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182481
