UK: Employment Briefing - July 2010

Last Updated: 30 September 2010
Article by Brian Gegg, Jesper Christensen and Marc Meryon

Originally published in July 2010

Unlimited Loss of Earnings Following Breach of Disciplinary Procedure

In Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust the Court of Appeal overturned an EAT's decision that damages were limited to notice and a notional period for a disciplinary process where a contractual procedure was not adhered to.

Mr Edwards was a consultant trauma and orthopaedic surgeon who faced charges of professional and personal misconduct. Under the terms of the Trust's contractual disciplinary procedure the Trust was obliged:

  • To appoint a person with legal qualifications to chair the panel;
  • To appoint as a member of the panel a clinician of the same medical discipline as Mr Edwards;
  • To allow Mr Edwards to be legally represented at the hearing.

Mr Edwards alleged that by failing to observe these contractual requirements the Trust reached a decision (that he was guilty of gross personal and professional misconduct) that it would not have reached had it carried out a proper procedure. He alleged that as a result of those breaches in procedure, the findings against him meant that he would not gain work in his field of expertise again leading to losses of around £3.8 million up to the date of retirement.

The Court of Appeal were asked to consider whether in principle Mr Edwards could pursue such a claim or whether his claim was limited to damages for his notice period and a notional period to compensate him for the time it would have taken to properly go through the disciplinary procedure (the 'Gunton' extension).

The Trust argued that, in line with the decision in Johnson v Unisys Ltd, an employee could not bring a claim for breach of the implied term of trust and confidence for the manner of dismissal. Such a claim should be pursued as an unfair dismissal claim. The Court of Appeal distinguished Johnson by pointing out that that case dealt with implied terms. In Mr Edwards' case, there was an actual breach of a contractual term. If the findings of misconduct resulted from the Trust's breach of contract (failing to properly follow the contractual disciplinary procedure) then the Court of Appeal could see no reason why Mr Edwards could not recover his loss flowing from that breach (subject always to usual contractual principle such as mitigation).

This case should ring alarm bells for employers with detailed disciplinary procedures, particularly where a dismissal resulting from a flawed procedure may significantly affect or prejudice an employee's chances of securing future employment. The individual will of course have to show that properly observing the procedure would be likely to have led to a different outcome (ie that he was not guilty of misconduct) and that the failure to secure other employment resulted from the findings against him.

Inflating a Woman's Redundancy Score when on Maternity Leave was Discriminatory

An employment tribunal has held that the artificial inflation of a woman's score in a redundancy exercise, when she was on maternity leave was discriminatory against a male comparator.

In De Belin v Eversheds Legal Services Ltd, Eversheds decided that redundancies were necessary in their Leeds real estate office. Two associates, Mr De Belin and Ms Reinholz were identified as at risk of redundancy. Both were scored against five redundancy criteria, one of these being 'lock up'. Lock up measures the period of time between the undertaking of a piece of work and receipt of payment. Mr De Belin's lock up for the relevant period gave him 0.5 points. Ms Reinhold was on maternity leave at the relevant time and so no lock up figure was available for her. Eversheds decided to allocate Ms Reinholz the maximum score of 2 for lock up because, they reasoned, to give a different score would be unfair since she was not at work to influence it. This meant that Mr De Belin's total score was 27 and Ms Reinholz's score was 27.5. Mr De Belin, having a lower score than Ms Reinholz, was selected for redundancy.

Mr De Belin's internal appeals failed and he brought a claim for direct discrimination and unfair dismissal. Eversheds argued that Ms Reinholz, being on maternity leave, was entitled to 'special treatment' (section 2(2) Sex Discrimination Act 1975). The tribunal disagreed, finding that Eversheds' inflation of Ms Reinhold's scores overstepped the limits of what was necessary to promote equality of opportunity (as the ECJ in Kalanke decided). The tribunal found that Mr De Belin was entitled to use Ms Reinholz as a comparator and that Eversheds could easily have used different criteria, or applied a different reference period, when making their selection for redundancy. Importantly, the tribunal held that section 2(2) could not be read in such a way as to give women blanket special treatment.

Eversheds are appealing the decision so an EAT decision may shed further light on the interpretation of 'special treatment'.

Without Prejudice Rule Kept in Check

The EAT in Woodward v Santander UK Plc considered the ambit of the without prejudice rule in settlement negotiations.

The without prejudice rule provides that communications which form part of negotiations with a view to reaching a settlement are protected from disclosure. The exceptions to this rule are narrowly defined, namely where there has been perjury, blackmail or other 'unambiguous impropriety'. Ms Woodward claimed that the 'unambiguous impropriety' exception applied where she had repeatedly failed to secure alternative employment after reaching terms of settlement with Santander. She sought to rely on discussions about securing a reference which took place during without prejudice negotiations.

The EAT, upholding the tribunal's decision, found that the without prejudice rule was engaged and that the exception to the rule did not apply on the facts of this case. The EAT underlined that the exception should be interpreted narrowly otherwise a party could comb through the correspondence or discussions to point to equivocal words or actions in support of an inference of discrimination.

12 Month Non Solicitation Clause Too Long

The High Court has ruled in Associated Foreign Exchange Ltd v International Foreign Exchange (UK) Ltd that Mr Abbassi, an account executive who had worked for AFEX and moved to a competitor, IFX , was not bound by a 12 month non solicitation of customers or potential customers clause. The High Court, considering the enforceability of such a clause, took into account Mr Abbassi's lack of seniority and contractual terms, concluding that he was not a key or very senior employee. Further, there was already a six month non-dealing clause in Mr Abbassi's contract of employment preventing Mr Abbassi from dealing with (as opposed to soliciting) customers, and the Court ruled that this offered sufficient protection to AFEX. The Court also noted that foreign currency exchange customers were not particularly loyal and that a period of six months would have offered sufficient protection.

The High Court also found that, even if it had ruled that the 12 month period was enforceable, it would not have extended the protection to potential customers. It pointed out that such protection would only be appropriate where building up a relationship with potential customers was a lengthy and difficult process.

This case underlines the importance of drafting post termination restraints with close regard to the status and type of employee and the nature and cycles of the business. Blanket restrictive covenants are increasingly unlikely to be upheld in court where little thought has gone into tailoring the covenant to suit the circumstances of the employee and the business.

Court of Appeal Overturns High Court in BA Strike Injunction

The Court of Appeal's decision in Unite the Union v British Airways plc, overturning the High Court's ruling that BA had an arguable case that Unite had failed to take reasonable steps to inform its members of the strike ballot result, has now been published.

Under section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 a trade union must take reasonably necessary steps to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the strike ballot are informed of certain specified information. If the union fails to satisfy this requirement it loses its immunity against liability in tort (the tort being that of inducing employees to breach their contracts).

Following an earlier unsuccessful ballot, Unite balloted its members in February 2010 to strike in relation to an industrial dispute with BA. A strike took place in March and further talks broke down. Unite announced further strikes under the auspices of the February ballot and BA sought an injunction in the High Court to stop the strikes, arguing that Unite had not complied with section 231. Unite argued that it had taken all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that those entitled to vote in the ballot were informed of the number of votes cast/ individuals answering 'yes' or 'no'/ spoiled voting papers.

The Court of Appeal underlined that it is the Union, not the employers, which must make broad factual judgments about how to comply with s.231 and thereafter for the court to make an objective valuation of the steps taken and the process by which the Union has sought to comply with its obligations and to decide whether or not it has done so. Lord Judge held that if the result of a ballot itself is unaffected by accidental, small scale failures in the process, it is difficult to see why minor failures about the provision of information about the results to Union members should undermine the entire process. Different considerations arise in the context of information to be supplied to the employers.

Further, nothing in s.231 prescribes the method of compliance. Lord Judge concluded that, subject always to reasonableness, the union is not required to prove that literally every eligible member was personally sent his or her own individual report. In his judgment, if the case went to trial, the high probability is that BA would have been able to establish that the s.231 process could have been better but there is a high probability that the union would establish that the process was sufficient.

The court rightly refused to get involved in the merits or otherwise of the BA dispute – these were not of concern in establishing whether Unite had complied with s.231. It is notable however that the majority of the Court of Appeal was reluctant to injunct a strike on a technicality. Lord Judge further commented 'we must all hope for a speedy and fair resolution of this dispute. It must be resolved by negotiation. Legal processes do not constitute mediation'.

And Finally...

Equality Act – Implementation Dates

There is some confusion over the implementation dates for the Equality Act. At the time of writing the Government Equalities Office had removed the implementation dates from the website and a spokeswoman indicated that the dates for implementation may be put back. However, a recent release from the GEO about consultation on questionnaires refers to the bulk of the Act coming into force later this year (as expected). Watch this space...

Fake Fit Notes

Employers, beware! Fake fit notes are circulating for as little as £10. A website has been selling authentic looking replicas and are even selling on a 'buy one, get one free' basis.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.