178:
appropriate declaration. Miss O'Rourke QC submitted that, if in such a situation there is a breach of contract sufficient to support the grant of an injunction but (for whatever reason) the employee does not obtain an injunction, it is anomalous if the normal common law remedy of damages is in principle not available to him. The short answer to this submission is that an injunction to prevent a threatened unfair dismissal does not cut across the statutory scheme for compensation for unfair dismissal. None of the objections based on the co-existence of inconsistent parallel common law and statutory rights applies. The grant of injunctive or declaratory relief for an actual or threatened breach of contract would not jeopardise the coherence of our employment laws and would not be a recipe for chaos in the way that, as presaged by Lord
Millett in Johnson, the recognition of parallel and inconsistent rights to seek compensation for unfair dismissal in the tribunal and damages in the courts would be.
142:. Mr Botham was a youth community worker in Germany till he was dismissed by the MoD for gross misconduct for inappropriate behaviour with two teenage girls in September 2003. He was placed on a list of people unsuitable to work with children under the Protection of Children Act 1999, and not removed until July 2007. He claimed unfair dismissal. The Tribunal found he was unfairly dismissed, and was awarded the maximum, his name removed from the register. He then claimed damages for breach of contract in the High Court. Slade J in the High Court held that he could not recover damages, because it related to the manner of dismissal. Pill LJ approved an appeal, because of the
28:
124:
wrecked. The GMC, however, did not prevent him continuing to work. The judge held that damages could not exceed the earnable income in the notice period, plus the period that a disciplinary procedure would last, and further damages were excluded by
Johnson for the manner of the dismissal. The Court of Appeal held Mr Edwards could recover full damages for breach of express contractual disciplinary proceedings, and
155:
2002 and EA 2008 amendments. Parliament's enactment of unfair dismissal legislation, which was less generous than the common law, precluded any claim for damages relating to the manner of dismissal, whether formulated as either an express or an implied term. An employee could seek an injunction to halt the threatened breach of contract, however, as it still plainly remained a breach of contract.
199:, I am puzzled as to how it can be possible for an employee with a contractual right to a particular disciplinary process to enforce that right in advance by injunction but not possible for him to claim damages for its breach after the event. And I am also puzzled why it should make a difference if the right to claim damages is expressly spelled out in the contract.
154:
The
Supreme Court held (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson dissenting) that neither Mr Edwards, nor Mr Botham, could claim more loss than would be available in an unfair dismissal claim. Breach of a disciplinary rule counted to the fairness of a dismissal in ERA 1996, and that was so during the EA
189:
110. In my view the Court of Appeal reached the right conclusions for the right reasons and both appeals should be dismissed. As the majority take a different view, I shall be brief. But I should perhaps declare an interest, as the only member of this court to have spent a substantial proportion of
168:
39. It is necessarily to be inferred from this statutory background that, unless they otherwise expressly agree, the parties to an employment contract do not intend that a failure to comply with contractually binding disciplinary procedures will give rise to a common law claim for damages. In these
162:
23. As Lord
Nicholls said in Eastwoodâs case at paras 12 and 13, Parliament has addressed the highly sensitive and controversial issue of what compensation should be paid to employees who are dismissed unfairly. In fixing the limits on the amount of compensatory awards, Parliament has expressed its
130:
only precludes a term being implied at common law for the manner of dismissal. Moore-Bick LJ âin cases where the claimant relies on the common law implied term it will sometimes be necessary to determine whether the act relied on formed part of the process of dismissal or preceded it. The need for
123:
summarily dismissed his appeal. He claimed ÂŁ3.8m in lost earnings and damage to reputation, arguing that if the procedure were proper, by having a lawyer and someone from his department on the panel, the allegations would not have been established against him, and his career would not have been
177:
44. That is not to say that an employer who starts a disciplinary process in breach of the express terms of the contract of employment is not acting in breach of contract. He plainly is. If that happens, it is open to the employee to seek an injunction to stop the process and/or to seek an
118:
Mr
Edwards was dismissed from his surgeon job for âgross misconductâ without having his contractual disciplinary procedure followed for alleged impropriety toward a female patient. The contract also said âthe employment is subject to three monthsâ notice on either sideâ. The
206:
Lord Kerr (and Lord Wilson concurring) would have held that Mr
Edwards should succeed in his claim, but because Mr Botham's reputational damage was inextricably linked to the manner of his dismissal, he could not have a successful claim.
131:
that inquiry does not arise, however, in a case where the employee relies on an express term of the contract and accordingly in such cases the
Johnson exclusion area is not a relevant concept.â
174:
43. No example was cited to us of any case decided before the 1971 Act in which an employee was awarded damages for breach of contract for the unfair manner in which he had been dismissed.
501:
236:
315:
163:
view âon how the interests of employers and employees, and the social and economic interests of the country as a whole, are best balanced in cases of unfair dismissalâ.
506:
341:
496:
195:
122. I am uncertain as to how the majority would regard the case of an employee with the contractual right only to be dismissed for cause. Like
229:
425:
38:
289:
222:
357:
301:
385:
329:
413:
27:
252:
120:
399:
275:
126:
190:
her working life as an employee rather than as a self-employed barrister or tenured office holder.
443:
107:
132:
49:
Edwards v
Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence
371:
263:
361:
305:
490:
454:
439:
103:
99:
429:
403:
389:
375:
347:
319:
279:
58:
196:
214:
169:
circumstances, I agree entirely with para 66 of Lord
Hoffmann's speech.
218:
91:
146:
case, and gave permission to go to the Supreme Court.
77:
69:
64:
54:
44:
34:
20:
187:
160:
158:Lord Dyson and Lord Walker said the following.
230:
8:
237:
223:
215:
26:
17:
502:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases
343:Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland
465:
330:McClelland v NI General Health Services
316:Société Générale, London Branch v Geys
426:Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital
21:Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital
7:
203:Lord Mance agreed with Lord Dyson.
182:Lord Phillips gave a short speech.
39:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
14:
290:Gunton v Richmond upon Thames LBC
358:Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald Int
302:Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth
507:2011 in United Kingdom case law
497:United Kingdom labour case law
414:Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd
386:Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc
185:Lady Hale said the following.
1:
140:Botham v Ministry of Defence
95:Botham v Ministry of Defence
523:
253:Employment Rights Act 1996
436:
422:
410:
396:
382:
368:
354:
338:
326:
312:
298:
286:
272:
260:
250:
82:
25:
245:Wrongful dismissal cases
135:and Lloyd LJ concurred.
138:The case was joined to
121:General Medical Council
73:EWCA Civ 571, IRLR 702
201:
180:
100:[2011] UKSC 58
400:Barber v Somerset CC
276:Johnson v Unisys Ltd
127:Johnson v Unisys Ltd
444:wrongful dismissal
108:wrongful dismissal
83:Wrongful dismissal
450:
449:
106:case, concerning
87:
86:
514:
473:
470:
344:
239:
232:
225:
216:
30:
18:
522:
521:
517:
516:
515:
513:
512:
511:
487:
486:
481:
476:
471:
467:
463:
451:
446:
432:
418:
406:
392:
378:
372:Reda v Flag Ltd
364:
350:
342:
334:
322:
308:
294:
282:
268:
264:Wilson v Racher
256:
246:
243:
213:
152:
116:
12:
11:
5:
520:
518:
510:
509:
504:
499:
489:
488:
485:
484:
480:
477:
475:
474:
464:
462:
459:
458:
457:
448:
447:
437:
434:
433:
423:
420:
419:
411:
408:
407:
397:
394:
393:
383:
380:
379:
369:
366:
365:
355:
352:
351:
339:
336:
335:
327:
324:
323:
313:
310:
309:
299:
296:
295:
287:
284:
283:
273:
270:
269:
261:
258:
257:
251:
248:
247:
244:
242:
241:
234:
227:
219:
212:
209:
151:
148:
115:
112:
85:
84:
80:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
62:
61:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
519:
508:
505:
503:
500:
498:
495:
494:
492:
483:
482:
478:
469:
466:
460:
456:
455:UK labour law
453:
452:
445:
441:
440:UK labour law
435:
431:
428:
427:
421:
416:
415:
409:
405:
402:
401:
395:
391:
388:
387:
381:
377:
374:
373:
367:
363:
362:EWCA Civ 1287
360:
359:
353:
349:
346:
345:
337:
332:
331:
325:
321:
318:
317:
311:
307:
304:
303:
297:
292:
291:
285:
281:
278:
277:
271:
266:
265:
259:
254:
249:
240:
235:
233:
228:
226:
221:
220:
217:
210:
208:
204:
200:
198:
193:
191:
186:
183:
179:
175:
172:
170:
166:
164:
159:
156:
149:
147:
145:
141:
136:
134:
129:
128:
122:
113:
111:
109:
105:
104:UK labour law
101:
97:
96:
92:
81:
76:
72:
68:
63:
60:
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
468:
424:
412:
398:
384:
370:
356:
340:
328:
314:
300:
288:
274:
262:
205:
202:
194:
192:
188:
184:
181:
176:
173:
171:
167:
165:
161:
157:
153:
143:
139:
137:
125:
117:
94:
90:
89:
88:
70:Prior action
65:Case history
48:
15:
306:EWCA Civ 28
491:Categories
479:References
333:1 WLR 594
197:Lord Kerr
472:EWHC 646
211:See also
150:Judgment
78:Keywords
55:Citation
430:UKSC 58
404:UKHL 13
390:UKHL 35
376:UKPC 38
348:UKHL 28
320:UKSC 63
293:ICR 755
280:UKHL 13
267:ICR 428
144:Edwards
133:Ward LJ
59:UKSC 58
417:Ch 305
461:Notes
114:Facts
102:is a
98:
35:Court
442:and
438:see
255:s 86
93:and
493::
110:.
238:e
231:t
224:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
