Kircher v Hillingdon Primary Care Trust [2006] EWHC 21 (QB) (13 January 2006)

Kircher v Hillingdon Primary Care Trust [2006] EWHC 21 (QB) (13 January 2006)

The court held that the claimant had established a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the defendant was contractually obliged to follow the HC(90)9 disciplinary procedure before terminating his employment. The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending trial, and damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant. Accordingly, an interim prohibitory injunction was appropriate to restrain the defendant from acting on the termination letter until trial or further order.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 21 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Michael Kircher; Defendant: Hillingdon Primary Care Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Employment Dispute / Application for Interim Relief Prior to Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Disciplinary Procedures, Summary Dismissal, Employment Contracts, Professional Misconduct
Employment Law Contract Law Interim Injunctions Disciplinary Procedures Summary Dismissal Employment Contracts Professional Misconduct

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Michael Kircher

Claimant

Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Employment Dispute / Application for Interim Relief Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was contractually obliged to follow disciplinary procedures (HC(90)9) before terminating the claimant's employment
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendant from acting on the termination letter pending trial
  3. 3 Whether the notice provision in the employment contract overrides disciplinary procedures

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimant had established a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the defendant was contractually obliged to follow the HC(90)9 disciplinary procedure before terminating his employment. The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending trial, and damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant. Accordingly, an interim prohibitory injunction was appropriate to restrain the defendant from acting on the termination letter until trial or further order.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • The defendant is restrained until trial or further order from acting upon or otherwise treating as valid the letter of 26 May 2005 purporting to terminate the claimant's employment.