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 there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the defendant was contractually obliged to follow the HC(90)9 disciplinary procedure before terminating the claimant's employment, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting an interim prohibitory injunction to preserve the status quo pending trial. The injunction was not mandatory in nature but prohibitory, preventing the defendant from acting on the dismissal letter until trial or further order.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 21
Parties
Claimant: Dr Michael Kircher; Defendant: Hillingdon Primary Care Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (employment) / Interim Relief Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Interim prohibitory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Disciplinary Procedures in Employment, Summary Dismissal, Contractual Notice Provisions, Professional Misconduct Procedures (hc(90)9)
Employment Law Contract Law Interim Injunctions Disciplinary Procedures in Employment Summary Dismissal Contractual Notice Provisions Professional Misconduct Procedures (hc(90)9)

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 6 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 (employment) / Interim Relief Application 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 defendant could rely on the contractual notice provision to summarily dismiss the claimant for 'irreconcilable differences'
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant or whether interim injunctive relief is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the defendant was contractually obliged to follow the HC(90)9 disciplinary procedure before terminating the claimant's employment, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting an interim prohibitory injunction to preserve the status quo pending trial. The injunction was not mandatory in nature but prohibitory, preventing the defendant from acting on the dismissal letter until trial or further order.

Court Disposition

Interim prohibitory injunction granted

Orders

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