Janardan Prasad Dhasmana Secretary of State for Health (Respondent) United Bristol Healthcare Nhs Trust (Interested Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWHC J1124-1 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 24 November 2000 |
| Docket Number | CO/2680/2000 |
[2000] EWHC J1124-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
CO/2680/2000
The Queen on the Application of
MISS B LANG QC (instructed by Clyde & Co, 51 Eastcheap, London EC3M 1JP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR M FORDHAM (instructed by Office of the Solicitor, Department of Health, New Court, 48 Carey Street, London WC2A 2LS) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Friday, 24th November 2000
This is an application for permission to apply for judicial review by Dr Dhasmana. The decision sought to be reviewed is that of the Secretary of State for Health communicated in a letter dated 5 May of this year, to the effect that the claimant's appeal under paragraph 190 of the National Health Service "Terms and Conditions of Service for Hospital, Medical and Dental Staff" was inadmissible because he had no jurisdiction to determine it.
Miss Beverly Lang QC, for the claimant, submits that there is an arguable case that the Secretary of State has made an error of law, because he did have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under paragraph 190 and should indeed have done so.
The relevant facts can be summarised as follows. From January 1986 until the autumn of 1998, the claimant was employed as a consultant cardiac cardiothoracic surgeon at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. He was initially employed by the Bristol and Western Health Authority, but his employment was transferred from 1 April 1991 to the United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust. The claimant and two other doctors at the Bristol Royal Infirmary were charged with allegations of professional misconduct in respect of paediatric cardiac surgery.
On 29 May 1998 the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council found the claimant guilty of serious professional misconduct, and on 18 June directed that, for a period of three years, his registration should be conditional on compliance with the requirement that he should not undertake any paediatric cardiac surgery; so he was at liberty to continue to work as an adult cardiac surgeon. The GMC directed that the other two doctors should have their names erased from the register.
The claimant was apparently on special leave during the GMC proceedings, and following meetings with him in August and early September 1998, the Trust decided to dismiss him. In a letter dated 9 September 1998, Mr Ross, the chief executive of the trust, wrote:
"In reaching my decision I should also make it clear that I recognise that your surgical results in the period before the GMC Enquiry were acceptable… However my concern has to be with the future and the question of whether you could successfully return to adult cardiac surgery practice in the Bristol Royal Infirmary. I have considered a number of factors:
The heavy personal burden that the public enquiry will place on you and the likelihood of further damaging public criticism of you.
The grave reservations expressed by almost all of your senior colleagues within Cardiac Services about the practicalities of your returning.
The likelihood of your central involvement in a number of high-profile litigation cases in the coming months and years, and the great personal pressure this will bring.
Your task in restoring public confidence in your ability, which I think will be impossible after all that has occurred.
For all these reasons my judgment is…that it will not be possible for you to return successfully to work…"
And then these important concluding sentences:
"It is with regret that my conclusion is that I have no option other than to bring your employment in the Trust to an end with immediate effect. Your contract entitles you to 3 months notice but in the circumstances it would be appropriate to pay you in lieu of this notice."
The Trust paid the salary in lieu of notice to the claimant on 15 September 1998, and he accepted it.
Subsequently, there were appeal proceedings within the ambit of his employment by the Trust which were unsuccessful, but it is unnecessary for me to make any more than this passing reference to that.
On 7 December 1998 the claimant sent the Secretary of State a notice of appeal purporting to be under paragraph 190 of the Terms and Conditions of Service for...
To continue reading
Request your trial