Unrestricted Damages Awarded in Wrongful Dismissal Case
In Michael Steven Delawar Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 571, an employee who suffered damage and loss of professional status recovered damages beyond his three month notice period once it was established that the findings of misconduct that had lead to his summary dismissal would not have been made if the contractual disciplinary process had been properly conducted.
Mr Edwards was a surgeon at the NHS Trust. He appealed against a decision regarding the amount of damages he could claim in a wrongful dismissal action. The NHS Trust had summarily dismissed Mr Edwards for personal and professional misconduct. He argued that the disciplinary process followed by the Trust breached the contractual procedure stipulated in his statement of employment particulars, and that had the correct procedure been followed, misconduct would not have been found against him. Mr Edwards sought damages in the region of £4.3million to cover expenses and loss of earnings to the date of proceedings and future loss of earnings to retirement and, finally, future loss of pension. The Trust argued that such a claim exceeded the restriction on the level of damages Mr Edwards could claim, namely loss of earnings for his three month contractual notice period.
It was held that Mr Edwards was entitled to recover damages beyond his contractual notice period and also beyond any additional period it would have taken the employer to complete the contractual disciplinary procedure properly.The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.