Factual and Procedural Background
This is an application by the Plaintiff for an injunction to restrain the Defendant from continuing with a disciplinary hearing against him. The disciplinary hearing commenced on 27th January 2015, and the injunction application was heard on 28th January 2015. Although formally ex parte, the Defendant was notified and represented at the hearing. The court ordered that the Defendant would not make closing submissions and that the Disciplinary Panel would not give its decision until further order from the Court, to prevent the application from becoming academic. The Plaintiff, a consultant in general and colorectal surgery employed since August 2011, faced concerns about his clinical practice arising in early 2012. Following a desktop review by the Royal College of Surgeons, serious concerns were expressed. The Plaintiff was suspended on full pay in October 2012 and investigated by an external investigator, who reported in July 2014. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff in late October 2014 of a prima facie case of gross misconduct and of proposed disciplinary charges, with the hearing initially scheduled for December 2014 but later postponed to late January 2015 due to availability issues.
The Defendant's Disciplinary Policy required the management case to be provided at least 10 working days before the hearing; the Defendant complied by providing the management case on 12th January 2015 for a hearing starting 27th January 2015. The charges alleged dishonesty, gross negligence, and failure to observe ethical standards in various respects relating to the Plaintiff's professional conduct and research.
In January 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with dyslexia, and his solicitors requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for adjustments and further expert evidence. The Defendant opposed this, and the Disciplinary Panel decided to proceed with the hearing while making certain procedural adjustments to accommodate the Plaintiff's condition. The Plaintiff and his legal team subsequently withdrew from the hearing after the Panel refused a short adjournment to allow the Plaintiff to seek relief in the High Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should grant an interim injunction to restrain the continuation of the disciplinary hearing against the Plaintiff.
- Whether the Plaintiff was given a fair opportunity to prepare for the disciplinary hearing in light of the timing of the management case and the diagnosis of dyslexia.
- Whether the Court should intervene in the disciplinary process or leave procedural fairness to be managed by the Disciplinary Panel and contractual mechanisms including appeal rights.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff had only 12 working days to respond after receiving the management case, which was insufficient given the complexity and length of the investigation (over 27 months).
- The Plaintiff's solicitors argued it was impossible to instruct an expert witness in the time available.
- The diagnosis of dyslexia was relevant to some charges and required workplace adjustments and procedural accommodations during the hearing.
- The Plaintiff's representatives contended that damages would not be an adequate remedy, as dismissal following the hearing would irreparably harm the Plaintiff’s career.
- Fairness required an adjournment to allow for proper preparation and expert evidence regarding the impact of dyslexia.
Defendant's Arguments
- The Plaintiff had known the substance of the charges since November 2014, giving ample time to prepare.
- The final charges were identical to earlier drafts, so no surprise arose from their timing.
- The Plaintiff's solicitors had requested minor date adjustments in December 2014 without raising concerns about preparation time.
- The Disciplinary Panel had already made accommodations for the Plaintiff’s dyslexia and could seek independent expert evidence if needed.
- The disciplinary policy provided for an appeal mechanism to address procedural fairness or new evidence, including evidence relating to dyslexia.
- The Court should avoid micro-managing disciplinary proceedings and allow them to run their course as per the parties’ contract.
- The Plaintiff delayed seeking relief, and the hearing was already underway, reducing the appropriateness of injunctive relief.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 |
Framework for granting interim injunctions: serious issue to be tried, adequacy of damages, and balance of convenience. |
Used as the starting point for assessing whether to grant the injunction, with recognition that a higher threshold applied due to the practical effect of the injunction. |
| Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251 |
Higher threshold for injunctions where the interim relief would effectively dispose of the claim; requires some assessment of the claimant's prospects. |
The court applied this higher test given that granting the injunction would effectively halt the disciplinary process until March 2015. |
| Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd [2005] ICR 254 |
Employment contract appeal provisions and consequences of successful appeal on dismissal. |
Supported the contractual structure allowing immediate dismissal pending appeal, with contract revival if appeal succeeds. |
| Kulkarni v Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust [2010] ICR 101 |
Warning against court intervention to micro-manage disciplinary proceedings. |
Supported the principle that courts should generally allow disciplinary hearings to proceed without interference. |
| Makhdum v Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust [2012] EWHC 4015 (QB) |
Limits on court intervention in disciplinary processes; recognition of 'clear wrong' as basis for intervention. |
Reinforced the court's reluctance to intervene absent clear injustice, supporting the Panel's discretion. |
| Chakrabarty v Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 2735 (QB) |
Judicial deference to contractual disciplinary procedures and limited scope for injunctions. |
Used to support the view that disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to run their course. |
| West Midlands Co-operative v Tipton [1986] ICR 192 |
Consideration of reinstatement and contract revival following successful appeal against dismissal. |
Considered in relation to the appeal process and contractual consequences of dismissal and reinstatement. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began with the established American Cyanamid principles for granting interim injunctions but applied the higher threshold from Lansing Linde because granting the injunction would effectively halt the disciplinary process until at least early March 2015, thereby disposing of the Plaintiff's claim at an interim stage. The Court accepted that the Defendant had complied with its contractual obligation to provide the management case at least 10 working days before the hearing and that the Plaintiff had known the substance of the charges for several months, allowing sufficient time for preparation.
The Court acknowledged the Plaintiff's dyslexia diagnosis and the Panel's willingness to make reasonable adjustments during the hearing, including the possibility of seeking independent expert evidence on the impact of the disability. The Court found that the Panel's discretion to manage procedural matters, including adjournments and evidence, was consistent with the parties’ contractual framework.
The Court emphasized the importance of not micro-managing disciplinary proceedings and noted the availability of a contractual appeal process that could address procedural fairness or new evidence, including evidence related to the Plaintiff's dyslexia. Although the Plaintiff delayed seeking relief, the Court did not find this delay decisive.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated a "clear wrong" or a sufficient prospect of success to justify injunction relief, especially given the procedural safeguards and adjustments already in place.
Holding and Implications
The Court REFUSED the Plaintiff's application for an interim injunction to restrain the disciplinary hearing.
The direct effect of this decision is that the disciplinary hearing was allowed to continue without interruption. The ruling affirms the principle that courts should generally refrain from intervening in ongoing disciplinary proceedings where the contractual process provides for procedural fairness and appeal mechanisms. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision reinforces the established approach to balancing interim relief and procedural autonomy in employment disciplinary contexts.