possibility. G himself contacted another trust and managed to secure, in principle, an agreement for him to undergo re-skilling there. H’s chief executive then asked G to attend a meeting to discuss his future employment. When G sought clarification as to H’s position, he was informed that his contract had been frustrated by reason of his inability to fulfill the conditions there under. Subsequently, H sent a copy of the NCAA’s report to the hospital where G had tentatively agreed to do his placement. Also enclosed were notes that were highly critical of G. The chief executive of the other trust then withdrew the offer of the placement. The issues were (1) whether G’s contract of employment had been terminated by operation of the doctrine of frustration; (2) if not, whetherBOX 9.13
246G was entitled to injunctive or other relief. G contended that (1) there had been no unforeseen supervening event that rendered performance of the contract impossible or radically different. So long as re-skilling was possible, it could not be said that the contractual obligations undertaken by him had become incapable of being performed. Furthermore, the doctrine of frustration was not available to H because H had contrived to bring about the state of affairs that enabled it to say that there was no possibility of G obtaining a re-skilling placement; (2) if the disciplinary provisions in the contract of employment subsisted, an injunction should be granted that would compel H to carry out its contractual obligations in relation to those provisions. It was held in this case that G had been on special leave for almost two years. That was a relevant factor, but it was not determinative. G was a very highly trained specialist and if his employment were terminated it was unlikely that he would find work as a medical practitioner in the NHS after that. Where the employment was of that nature and where its termination would have such a catastrophic effect it was reasonable to expect the employer to wait a little longer than would normally be expected. There still remained a realistic possibility that G would find a re-skilling placement. The NCAA would not have recommended such action if it had not considered that it was a realistic possibility. The Royal College of Surgeons was still willing to seek a placement for G. G’s obligations under his contract of employment had not become incapable of performance.It was also held that injunctions to compel a party to comply with a contract of employment would only be appropriate in unusual circumstances. G had a right to require H to abide by the disciplinary provisions in the contract. The disciplinary provisions were clear, and H had not followed them.The court also felt that H was in any case disentitled from relying on the doctrine of frustration because its actions were to blame for the loss of the prospect of G undergoing re-skilling at the other trust.The preliminary issues were therefore determined in favour of claimant.
Want to read all 28 pages?
Previewing 17 of 28 pages Upload your study docs or become a member.
Want to read all 28 pages?
Previewing 17 of 28 pages Upload your study docs or become a member.
End of preview
Want to read all 28 pages? Upload your study docs or become a member.