Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Employment lawDisciplineDiscipline and grievancesEmployment contracts

Legal opinion: Contractual disciplinary procedures

by Dan Peyton 8 Feb 2011
by Dan Peyton 8 Feb 2011

The Court of Appeal held last year that a consultant trauma and orthopaedic surgeon could pursue his claim for substantial future loss of income resulting from a breach of his employment contract, related to his employer’s failure to follow its contractual disciplinary procedure

Warning!

This article was originally published on 8 February 2011 and is not updated.

Since this article was published, the employer appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal.

XpertHR provides up-to-date guidance on disciplinary procedures.

The decision, in Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 571, enabled Mr Edwards to claim damages that are not limited to his notice period or the time it would have taken for the employer to carry out its contractual disciplinary procedure. Permission for the employer to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted and the hearing is listed for 22 June 2011.

So what should employers do about their disciplinary procedures? Are they now at risk of high value claims from employees they dismiss if they do not follow their own disciplinary procedures?

The key factor in the Edwards case was that his employer’s disciplinary procedure was contractual. As a result, when his employer failed to follow that procedure it breached its contractual obligations towards Mr Edwards, which led him to bring his claim for substantial damages as a result of the breach. Mr Edwards’ claim could never have succeeded if the disciplinary procedure had not been contractual.

Contractual disciplinary procedures serve to restrict the employer’s ability to deal with a disciplinary matter based on the circumstances of the situation. Most importantly, by making procedures contractual, employers risk facing claims for breach of contract if they do not follow those procedures. If the breach is sufficiently serious, this opens the door for employees like Mr Edwards to argue that they would not have been dismissed “but for” the breach (minor technical breaches are unlikely to permit successful claims for future loss of earnings in any event) and claim for losses arising from this breach.

Minimising the risk

In most cases where an employer has a disciplinary process in place, it will go through the same process or at least certain aspects of it each time, regardless of whether or not it is expressed to be contractual. For example, it will carry out an investigation, undertake interviews and convene meetings with the witnesses and the alleged offender. Following this process, the employer will make a decision, against which the employee can appeal. Typically, if flexibility is needed it will be in relation to the timing of each of these stages, not with these core elements of the process. Therefore, in the absence of clearer wording, there may be a risk that aspects of the disciplinary process may be found to be contractual as a matter of custom and practice, simply by virtue of being implemented in the same manner year on year. In order to minimise this risk, employers should include clear language expressly stating that its disciplinary procedure shall not be contractual.

Contractual disciplinary procedures

Can an employee bring a breach of contract claim in an employment tribunal?

Is there a minimum disciplinary procedure that employers must follow?

Can an employer dismiss an employee who has less than the service required to claim unfair dismissal without following its disciplinary procedure?

To what extent are the terms of a contract binding?

Our advice to employers is to keep the procedures non-contractual as this will present a major obstacle to an employee seeking to bring a claim for substantial damages for loss of future earnings in circumstances like those of Mr Edwards. The employee would have to establish that the procedure had become contractual by custom and practice.

If Mr Edwards’ claim is successful, he will likely recover a very significant sum from his former employer. One point that distinguishes Mr Edwards’ case and may give employers some measure of comfort (in certain industries) is that his future career prospects are seemingly limited because the NHS is a national organisation with control over a substantial proportion of the employment market. In other sectors, the employee is likely to be better able to mitigate his or her losses by finding new employment.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

So does the Edwards case change what employers should do when dealing with disciplinary dismissals? No. Whether contractual or non-contractual, employers need to follow the core elements of their disciplinary procedures in all but exceptional cases. There can be no claim for breach of contract where the alleged obligation is non-contractual. Similarly, no such claim is possible where there is no breach.

Dan Peyton, partner, and Doug Styles, senior associate, McGuireWoods, London.

Dan Peyton

Dan Peyton is managing partner of the London office of international law firm, McGuireWoods

previous post
Government urges employers to take on apprentices
next post
Jelf Employee Benefits launches new full flex platform

You may also like

Hospitality sector facing surge in tribunal claims

12 Aug 2025

Adviser who made sexual remarks unfairly dismissed by...

11 Aug 2025

Right-to-work crackdown: businesses left without ‘statutory excuse’

5 Aug 2025

Top 10 HR questions July 2025: Unauthorised absence

1 Aug 2025

TUC says Employment Rights Bill must be delivered...

28 Jul 2025

Neurodiversity case exposes nuance in reasonable adjustments

25 Jul 2025

Coldplay couple: why should they lose their jobs?

25 Jul 2025

MPs ‘openly hostile’ to preferred choice for EHRC...

24 Jul 2025

House of Lords votes against day-one dismissal rights

18 Jul 2025

Zero-hours employees may have to request guaranteed hours

17 Jul 2025

  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise