Bhatti v County Durham And Darlington NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 1079 (KB) (11 May 2026)

Bhatti v County Durham And Darlington NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 1079 (KB) (11 May 2026)

The Court held that the Claimant did not have strong grounds to challenge the rationality or lawfulness of the February 2025 restriction, as it was a proportionate response to systemic safety concerns and was applied to all incumbent surgeons. However, the October 2025 decision, which effectively prevented the Claimant from undertaking all his existing work and no alternative duties were offered, was tantamount to an exclusion. In such circumstances, the Defendant should have complied with the substantive MHPS provisions applicable to exclusion, including necessity and regular review. The Court found that the Claimant had a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the October 2025 and...

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1079 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Amir Ahmed Bhatti; Defendant: County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction in Employment Dispute / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief Pending Trial)
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Breach of Contract, Disciplinary Procedures in NHS, Maintaining High Professional Standards (mhps), Implied Terms of Trust and Confidence, Judicial Review of Employer Discretion
Employment Law Public Law Contract Law Interim Injunctions Breach of Contract Disciplinary Procedures in NHS Maintaining High Professional Standards (mhps) Implied Terms of Trust and Confidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Amir Ahmed Bhatti

Claimant

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction in Employment Dispute / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief Pending Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's restriction/exclusion of the Claimant from clinical practice was unlawful or irrational
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant breached the Claimant's contract of employment or the implied term of trust and confidence
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant failed to follow proper procedures under MHPS and its own policies

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Claimant did not have strong grounds to challenge the rationality or lawfulness of the February 2025 restriction, as it was a proportionate response to systemic safety concerns and was applied to all incumbent surgeons. However, the October 2025 decision, which effectively prevented the Claimant from undertaking all his existing work and no alternative duties were offered, was tantamount to an exclusion. In such circumstances, the Defendant should have complied with the substantive MHPS provisions applicable to exclusion, including necessity and regular review. The Court found that the Claimant had a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the October 2025 and...

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused

Orders

  • The Claimant's application for an interim injunction requiring the Defendant to lift the restriction/exclusion and reinstate him to clinical work is refused.
  • The existing restrictions on the Claimant's clinical practice remain in place pending trial.