The facts in Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

This case encapsulated two appeals to the Supreme Court – Edwards (“the Respondent”)  v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (“the Appellant”) and Botham (FC) v Ministry of Defence. Both employees had been dismissed by their respective employers for the reason of gross misconduct. Both Edwards and Botham had clauses in their contracts of employment stipulating that a certain procedure should be carried out in disciplinary proceedings. In both cases the stipulated disciplinary procedure was deviated from and both employees were dismissed. The contention of the two Claimants at the Employment Tribunal was that they would not have been dismissed but for their employers’ failure to implement the agreed-upon disciplinary procedure. Botham succeeded in the Employment Tribunal in his claim for unfair dismissal but issued in the High Court for breach of contract. Edwards also issued a claim for breach of contract (among other claims) for breach of contract.

The law relating to unfair dismissal and breach of contract

The general principle in contract law is that the purpose of damages is to put the innocent party in the position that they would have been in but for the breach of contract. Thus, if an employer terminates a contract without notice and does so in breach of contract, the employee may have a claim for breach of contract. This would be a claim for wrongful dismissal. Damages for the wrongful dismissal (in a case where an employee is, for example, dismissed for gross misconduct) would amount to the number of weeks that the employee should have served in notice but was denied. If an employer fails to follow a contractual disciplinary procedure then damages are limited to the period of time it would have taken for the employer to put the contractual procedure into effect and be concluded.

However, no damages may be awarded for the manner in which the employee is dismissed. Unfairness, in particular, in the manner of dismissal does not give rise to a common law action for breach of contract (Johnson v Unisys). Employees have traditionally therefore been unable to claim damages for breach of contract that (they contended) resulted in their dismissal (and damages). This rule was challenged again in Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Appellant and reasserted the Johnson v Unisys test ­– that employees cannot recover damages for loss suffered from breach of terms of their contract of employment if that breach of contract relates to their dismissal. Remedy for the manner of dismissal is only available through pursuit of a statutory claim of unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996, not through a common law action.

Our thoughts on Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Although this result may seem a little unfair on employees who have been unfairly dismissed because of an alleged failure to follow a contractual disciplinary procedure, the decision of the Supreme Court is not unreasonable. If a particular remedy is made available to employees by Parliament for unfair dismissal (through the Employment Rights Act 1996), employees cannot circumvent these provisions by pursuing a common law claim for breach of contract.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers,, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog. Contact Chris by emailing him at

Share →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


4.46 Average

13 Reviews


Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 1 hour ago


Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 2 hours ago


Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 3 hours ago


Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 3 hours ago


Resolved my issues

Posted 4 hours ago


Quick fast professional service.

Posted 4 hours ago


"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 5 hours ago


Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 4 days ago


"Excellent service, getting back to you promptly giving you very good advice."

Posted 5 days ago


I found Chris Hadrill to be an excellent help, he is very knowledgeable and gives good ,concise ,strategic advice .He makes himself readily accessible when you need him.I would personally highly recommend him.

Posted 6 days ago


Professional, efficient and reliable service provided. I strongly recommend them and I would use this service again.

Posted 1 week ago

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603