Amir Ahmed Bhatti v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

Amir Ahmed Bhatti v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

The application for interim relief was refused because the Claimant failed to establish strong grounds that the Defendant's January 2026 Decision to maintain restriction/exclusion was irrational or in breach of contract. The decision was based on serious patient safety and probity concerns arising from ongoing investigations and external reviews. The Defendant acted within its discretion, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the restriction pending trial.

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
Employment/breach of Contract / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application refused; costs awarded to Defendant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Suspension and Exclusion of Employees, Maintaining High Professional Standards (mhps), Implied Terms of Trust and Confidence, Clinical Governance, Patient Safety
Employment Law Medical Law Contract Law Interim Injunctions Suspension and Exclusion of Employees Maintaining High Professional Standards (mhps) Implied Terms of Trust and Confidence Clinical Governance +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Amir Ahmed Bhatti

Claimant

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment/breach of Contract / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's restriction/exclusion of the Claimant from clinical practice was unlawful and in breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's decisions were irrational or breached the implied term of trust and confidence
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant failed to follow MHPS procedures and consider alternatives to exclusion

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interim relief was refused because the Claimant failed to establish strong grounds that the Defendant's January 2026 Decision to maintain restriction/exclusion was irrational or in breach of contract. The decision was based on serious patient safety and probity concerns arising from ongoing investigations and external reviews. The Defendant acted within its discretion, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the restriction pending trial.

Court Disposition

Application refused; costs awarded to Defendant.

Orders

  • Claimant's application for interim injunction refused.
  • Claimant to pay Defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £47,000.