The High Court issues guidance as to when contractual provisions are valid

Hussain v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 1670 (QB)

    Helping You     About     Links     Contact     Site Info     HOME

4/11/2011

Dr Mahein Hussain a consultant paediatrician claimed she was excluded from work and was subject to disciplinary procedures in breach of the contract of employment. She also argued that her rights under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") were contravened. The article 6 argument was later withdrawn by agreement.

Mr Justice Andrew Smith ruled that the Trust was within its rights to place restrictions on Dr Hussain under its procedures but had been too harsh and was therefore in breach of its own procedures and the contract of employment.

The Trust would only have been entitled to proceed to a conduct hearing against Dr Hussain after having amended the original charges.

The High Court considered the factors needing to be addressed when deciding whether a particular provision (here with regard to disciplinary policy) has contractual effect (para 168):

  1. the importance of the provision to the contractual working relationship and its relationship to the contractual arrangements between the parties; Provisions important to implementing the agreement about exclusion and about conduct hearings will be contractual, and the more important the provision to the structure of the procedures, the more likely it contractual (Auld LJ - Keeley v Fosroc International Ltd [2006] IRLR 961).
  2. the level of detail prescribed by the provision; the courts should not "become involved in the micro-management of conduct hearings" ( Court of Appeal Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust, [2008] IRLR 949 - para 25 ).
  3. the certainty of what the provision requires; A vague provision will not have contractual status.
  4. the context of the provision; if it is included among other contractual provisions it is more likely to have to have contractual status.
  5. whether the provision was workable (Malone v British Airways, [2010] EWCA Civ 1225 - para 62).

The judge believed that detailed provisions about investigations "and about other matters" were intended as advice or guidance to investigators and others and "should (not) be enforced through the legal process as breaches of contract, with the court "micro-managing" these arrangements."


  • Concerning the exclusion the Trust was ruled in breach of Dr Hussain's contract of employment.
  • Had the Trust brought the 'March charges' to a conduct hearing this would also have been a breach of contract.
  • Dr Hussain's other complaints were rejected.



Transcript of the judgement:-   Hussain v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 1670 (QB)
WorkRep.co.uk
Protecting Workers


Some recent employment cases:-
2011
Disciplinary processes must be conducted fairly and without undue delay - Lim v Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2178 (QB)
An employer's reasonable (but wrong) belief that a worker is working illegally is no defence to an illegal deduction from wages claim - Okuoimose v City Facilities Management (UK) Ltd [2011] UKEAT 0192_11_1309
Whistleblowers are not protected against victimisation by fellow workers - NHS Manchester v Fecitt & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1190
An employee sharing profits in the firm is not necessarily a partner - Williamson & Soden Solicitors v Briars EAT [2011] UKEAT/2011/0065_10_2705
Leaving a page out of the reasons for an EAT appeal was venial - Hine & Anor (t/a Hine Marketing Partnership) v Talbot & Ors [2011] UKEAT 1783_10_2706
In Equal Pay claims after a TUPE transfer, red circling will be accepted as constituting a genuine material factor defence - Scotland Co Ltd v Buchanan & Anor (Equal Pay Act : Material factor defence and justification) [2011] UKEAT 0042_10_2505
The Minimum wage did not apply to a worker sleeping over without duties to perform - Wray v JW Lees & Co (Brewers) Ltd (National Minimum Wage [2011] UKEAT 0102_11_1407
Requests to continue working after 65 must be considered in good faith - Compass Group Plc v Ayodele [2011] UKEAT 0484_10_1407
An autocratic style of management is no justification for breaching the contractual term of trust and confidence - McBride v Falkirk Football & Athletic Club [2011] UKEAT 0058_10_1706
Overtime payments in the absence of an agreement - Driver v Air India Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 830
Mere suspicion that a representative was acting for profit was not enough for imposing wasted costs - Jackson v Cambridgeshire County Council & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Costs) [2011] UKEAT 0402_09_0806
If you have a problem at work over harassment, disability, sex, age, race discrimination or bullying or are seeking compensation or reinstatement for unfair or constructive dismissal then contact workrep for an evaluation of your case. We can also advise you on equal pay, TUPE or employment status. Often an employee will come to us over a breach of contract by their employer or for issues concerning whistleblowing. If your employer has made you redundant you might in fact have been unfairly dismissed or wrongfully dismissed. If you have any other employment issues don't hesitate to contact WorkRep.
You do not need to accept being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work. If you are suffering from bullying victimisation or discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. Whatever your employment problem is, even if you have failed in your tribunal case and there is now a costs application against you we will try to help. click for further information about problems at work

Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep.co.uk are for general information purposes only.  Please read the site info before using this website