Employment: The High Court limits damages in wrongful dismissal cases

1 February 2012 |

Court confirms limit on damages for failure to follow contractual disciplinary procedure

A doctor sought to claim loss of earnings of more than £4 million, in a wrongful dismissal claim.  The High Court ruled that in a wrongful dismissal claim damages must not exceed the income the employee would have earned up until the employer would have lawfully terminated the employment.

The claimant was dismissed for professional and personal misconduct following a disciplinary hearing.  The claimant alleged his employer had adopted the wrong disciplinary procedure which amounted to a breach of contract.  He argued that had the procedure been properly adhered to he would not have been dismissed.   He claimed damages for loss of earnings during the time he would have been employed while the disciplinary process was completed and on the basis of what he would have received had he retained his position.

The court was not concerned about whether the employee “would have been” dismissed had the contract been followed, but rather the length of time it would have taken for the correct disciplinary procedure to be completed and for the appropriate notice to be given.  The court said it would have to be assumed that the employer would have dismissed the employee at the earliest opportunity, that is, once the disciplinary procedures have been completed.  Therefore, the maximum amount the claimant can recover should reflect the income he would have earned during the period that the disciplinary procedure would have taken place as well as the notice period.

Comment

Employees with less than 51 weeks’ service to the date of termination have no right to bring unfair dismissal proceedings in ordinary circumstances.   However, where disciplinary procedures are contractual they can claim for breach of contact if those procedures are not followed.  In the public sector many such procedures are contractual. Private sector employers should consider ensuring that such procedures remain discretionary to avoid cases such as this, even though the courts have limited the scope of the claim for damages.

Resources

Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation [2009] EWHC 2011 (QB)

For further information or to discuss the issues raised, please contact Colina Greenway (colina.greenway@abbisscadres.com on +44 (0) 203 051 5711.]

Disclaimer

Content is for general information purposes only.  The information provided is
not intended to be comprehensive and it does not constitute or contain
legal or other advice.  If you require assistance in relation to any
issue, please seek specific advice relevant to your particular
circumstances.

Disclaimer

Content is for general information purposes only. The information provided is not intended to be comprehensive and it does not constitute or contain legal or other advice. If you require assistance in relation to any issue please seek specific advice relevant to your particular circumstances. In particular, no responsibility shall be accepted by the authors or by Abbiss Cadres LLP for any losses occasioned by reliance on any content appearing on or accessible from this article. For further legal information click here.

Related content

13 June 2024
How to apply for certificate of residence in the UK
Where an individual is resident in the UK and has…
29 May 2024
UK Share Plan Reporting 2024: Everything you need to know
The deadline is approaching for the HMRC’s annual return filings…
20 May 2024
Employee Share Plan Reporting 2024: Alerting Your Clients
The UK tax authorities’ (HMRC) submission deadline for annual return…
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to the minute on our latest news and insights?
International reach

We have helped clients meet their HR needs in over 70 countries across five continents.