|
Injunction granted to prevent disciplinary hearing
The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court to grant an injunction to prevent an employer from carrying out a disciplinary hearing on the basis that it would constitute a breach of contract. Although the facts of this case are relatively unusual, the decision is a reminder of the ability of employees to obtain injunctions against their employers.
In Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (the Trust), Dr Mezey was employed by the Trust as a consultant forensic psychiatrist. One of her patients absconded during a period of unescorted leave and murdered a man. An internal inquiry was set up to examine the care and treatment of the patient and the events leading up to the murder. The Trust then decided to instigate disciplinary proceedings against Dr Mezey.
Unusually, two different contractual disciplinary procedures applied in this case, due to a change in procedure during the relevant time. The first contractual procedure was "Disciplinary Procedures for Hospital...Staff" (HC), where the procedure to be followed depended on the nature of the conduct or competence. HC was later replaced by a contractual procedure entitled "Maintaining High Professional Standards in the modern NHS" (MHPS). The relevant part of MHPS in this case related to the procedure for dealing with issues of capability. Different thresholds applied to each procedure. For example, under HC, if the investigating panel found that a practitioner was at fault, the Trust could decide on appropriate action. Under MHPS, if there were concerns about capability which could not be resolved routinely by management, the matter had to be referred to the National Clinical Assessment Authority (NCAA) before it could be considered by a capability panel.
Under the HC procedure, the report produced by the investigating panel (the Francis Report) concluded that although Dr Mezey's decision to grant the patient unescorted leave was inappropriate, it did not amount to serious professional incompetence. The Trust had failed to prove that Dr Mezey had been at serious fault. Despite these findings, the Trust attempted to set up a disciplinary hearing to consider taking disciplinary action against Dr Mezey under the MHPS procedure.
Dr Mezey applied for an injunction to prohibit the Trust from holding a disciplinary hearing. It was granted by the High Court on the basis that it was not open to the Trust to impose any disciplinary sanction, and none of the sanctions under the MHPS procedure were appropriate, particularly given that the Francis Report emphasised that Dr Mezey was a competent practitioner.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to grant an injunction as it would be a breach of contract for the Trust to hold a disciplinary hearing under MHPS. The threshold for invoking a disciplinary procedure was not crossed as Dr Mezey's capability to practice was not in question. Further, under the MHPS procedure, before the matter could be considered by a capability panel, this case had to be referred to the NCAA and no such referral had taken place.
|