Krebs v NHS Commissioning Board [2013] EWHC 3474 (Admin) (11 November 2013)

Krebs v NHS Commissioning Board [2013] EWHC 3474 (Admin) (11 November 2013)

The defendant was contractually entitled to terminate the claimant's contract for failure to cooperate with an NCAS assessment, having complied with all relevant contractual procedures. The claim was purely contractual and did not give rise to public law or human rights remedies. The termination was neither disproportionate nor unlawful.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3474 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Dr David Krebs; Defendant: NHS Commissioning Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Contractual Dispute (civil) / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendant.
Legal Topics
NHS Contracts, Termination of Contract, Public Law Remedies, Proportionality, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Remedial Notice, NCAS Assessment, Performers List Removal
Contract Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law NHS Contracts Termination of Contract Public Law Remedies Proportionality Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR +3 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr David Krebs

Claimant

NHS Commissioning Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contractual Dispute (civil) / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was entitled to terminate the claimant's NHS dental contract for failure to cooperate with an NCAS assessment
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to private law, public law, or human rights remedies for the termination
  3. 3 Whether Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR was engaged by the contract termination

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was contractually entitled to terminate the claimant's contract for failure to cooperate with an NCAS assessment, having complied with all relevant contractual procedures. The claim was purely contractual and did not give rise to public law or human rights remedies. The termination was neither disproportionate nor unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendant.