Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

Disciplinary allegations against a medical practitioner are not matters of a professional nature merely because they arise from disagreement about retraining or the requirements of the practitioner’s post. Under the contractual procedures, independent medical involvement is required where the allegations concern clinical matters or professional conduct, rather than ordinary misconduct or management instructions.

A dismissal by a public NHS employer does not determine the employee’s civil right to practise a profession where the practitioner remains fully registered and free to seek other employment. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is therefore not engaged merely because a particular public-sector employment is lost. In any event, the overall internal appeal process may satisfy the procedural requirements of article 6.

The claimant, a fully registered consultant cardiologist, challenged his dismissal by the defendant NHS Trust. He contended that the Trust had breached contractual disciplinary procedures by incorrectly classifying allegations concerning his refusal to comply with a reskilling plan, disclosure of confidential information and alleged misrepresentation of his health.

He also argued that the dismissal and internal appeal determined his civil right to practise medicine and engaged article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The agreed issue was whether the dismissal was contractually and conventionally lawful; the court was not required to decide the underlying disciplinary allegations or the appropriate sanction.

1. Contractual procedures. The disciplinary procedures were incorporated into the employment agreement through clause 9, but the distinction between contractual and non-contractual material did not affect the provisions in issue.
2. The first allegation was correctly classified as ordinary misconduct. Reskilling was intended to facilitate a return to work and did not involve the claimant exercising professional skills in treating, teaching or researching. The disagreement concerned compliance with reasonable management requirements and the contents of a plan for returning to clinical work. The other allegations concerned confidentiality and the claimant’s conduct during sick leave. None involved clinical matters or professional conduct requiring independent medical advice or an independent medically qualified panel member.
3. The court distinguished Skidmore v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2003] ICR 721. That case concerned the former HC(90)9 framework and conduct arising directly from the exercise of medical skills. The expression concerning professional conduct in MHPS had a narrower ambit. The Trust had therefore not breached the incorporated procedure.
4. The failure to adjourn the disciplinary hearing was not irrational or unfair. The Trust had repeatedly postponed the hearing, reasonably sought occupational-health evidence, and lacked reliable information about the claimant’s condition and ability to participate. Proceeding in those circumstances was rational and fair.
5. Article 6. The relevant civil right was the right to practise the profession for which the claimant was qualified, not a right to remain in a particular employment or speciality. The claimant remained fully registered with the General Medical Council and could seek employment in the public or private sector. The Trust’s decision therefore did not determine that civil right and did not play a major part in any determination by the General Medical Council.
6. The court applied the approach in R (oao G) v The Governors of X School [2011] UKSC 30 and distinguished Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust [2010] 1CR 101, because the claimant was fully registered, unlike a trainee whose NHS post was essential to qualification. The internal appeal panel was independent of those previously involved and, viewed overall, the process met article 6 requirements. The claim was dismissed.

First-instance decision. No earlier judicial decision in the same proceedings is stated.