header-logo header-logo

NHS trust—Compromise agreement with ex-employee—Whether agreement ultra vires—Whether trust unjustly enriched if so

01 July 2010
Issue: 7424 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Gibb v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 678

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Laws, Sedley and Rimer LJJ, 23 June 2010

For the purposes of unjust enrichment, if everything else is equal there is no principled distinction between a benefit consisting in money paid and a benefit consisting in a claim foregone.

Antony White QC and Oliver Segal (instructed by Thompsons Solicitors) for the claimant. Jane McNeill QC and Michael Ford (instructed by Brachers LLP) for the trust.

The claimant was appointed chief executive of the defendant NHS trust in November 2003.  In 2006 the trust attracted substantial negative publicity due to the outbreak of a “super bug” at hospitals it managed. The healthcare commission investigated the outbreaks. Its final report in late 2007 was highly critical of the trust’s leadership. The trust decided to terminate the claimant’s employment, although her own conduct had not been impugned, in response to the adverse publicity. The parties agreed on a severance payment of £250,000.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll