In the case of Ardron v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, the High Court ruled in favour of the claimant, a psychiatric consultant, who was applying for an interim injunction to restrain disciplinary proceedings against her.
The disciplinary proceedings related to allegations of gross misconduct following the suicide of a patient of the claimant. An investigation and disciplinary hearing conducted by the NHS Trust found evidence of gross misconduct and relied upon its disciplinary policy to justify the consultant’s possible summary dismissal. It referred to her actions as being 'inappropriate', 'inadequate' and 'careless'.
The High Court held that the standard required for behaviour to be considered gross misconduct under case law was significantly higher than under the Trust’s disciplinary policy. The judge referred to wrongdoing so serious as to suggest repudiation of the contractual relationship, for example deliberate and wilful flouting of the terms of employment. As such, the severity of Dr Ardron’s alleged misconduct was brought into question, leading the judge to hold that: “actions which may have been regrettable errors of judgement in making records […] or acts which are called 'inappropriate or careless' are arguably being wrongly categorised as gross misconduct.”
It was found that the Trust had incorrectly categorised the claimant’s actions as gross misconduct under its definitions within the disciplinary policy and procedure. This gave a sufficient basis for an injunction.
In practice the context of this case must be remembered, it involved a potentially career-ending decision for a doctor. That said, there is no reason why it might not apply to any regulated professional for who a dismissal could mean exclusion from their profession, or a career ending sanction. We are all used to employment contracts that define certain actions as justifying summary dismissal but, as this case shows, those actions must also generally constitute gross misconduct.
