Kircher v Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

Kircher v Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

There are serious issues to be tried as to whether the employer was contractually obliged to exhaust the disciplinary procedures before dismissal and whether the notice provision overrides those procedures. Damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the potential impact on the claimant's career and reputation....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Michael Kircher; Defendant: Hillingdon Primary Care Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Employment/contractual Dispute / Interim Application for Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Procedures, Summary Dismissal, Injunctions, Notice Provisions, Professional Misconduct, Adequacy of Damages
Employment Law Contract Law Disciplinary Procedures Summary Dismissal Injunctions Notice Provisions Professional Misconduct Adequacy of Damages

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Michael Kircher

Claimant

Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment/contractual Dispute / Interim Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer was contractually obliged to exhaust disciplinary procedures (HC(90)9) before dismissing the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the notice provision in the contract overrides disciplinary procedures
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the employer from acting on the dismissal letter

Ratio Decidendi

There are serious issues to be tried as to whether the employer was contractually obliged to exhaust the disciplinary procedures before dismissal and whether the notice provision overrides those procedures. Damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the potential impact on the claimant's career and reputation. The balance of convenience favours granting an interim injunction to preserve the status quo pending trial. The injunction is prohibitory, not mandatory, and does not require reinstatement but prevents the employer from acting on the dismissal letter until trial or further order.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • The defendant is prohibited until trial or further order from acting upon the letter of 26 May 2005 or otherwise treating it as an effective termination of the claimant’s contract of employment.