The High Court refused an interim order requiring Children’s University Hospital Temple Street Limited to pay consultant paediatrician Suffin Yap’s salary and benefits, including pension contributions, while her employment dispute proceeds to trial. It also refused clinical director Dr Eileen Treacy’s application to join the case as a notice party.
In a judgment delivered on 1 June 2006, Mr Justice Clarke said Yap had an arguable case based on allegations about the hospital’s administration and clinical operations. He stressed that the affidavit evidence did not allow the court to decide whether those allegations were true. Any findings on the claims, and what remedies might follow, would have to be considered at trial.
Yap was not working and was said to be fit to return. Her case was that the conditions she would face at work were improper; the hospital disputed the terms on which she said she was entitled to return. The judge said the dispute over her working conditions could not be resolved at the interlocutory stage. Because the court could not then order her return on the terms she sought, it would not order salary payments pending trial.
The judgment noted that courts had made interim salary orders in limited circumstances, including where an employment contract provided for pay during sick leave or certain suspensions. Clarke said those exceptions did not apply on the material before him. He refused the requested payment injunction, while emphasising that the substantive employment dispute remained for trial.
Treacy sought to join because her position and actions were expected to feature in the evidence. The judge said possible criticism of an individual in private proceedings did not, by itself, entitle that person to take part. He distinguished cases where a public law order would directly affect a third party’s interests, and concluded that any order in this case would be directed at the hospital, not Treacy. He therefore refused her application, whether framed as joining as a defendant or as a notice party.
The judgment said the parties agreed that the case should be prepared for an early trial, and the judge proposed discussing arrangements with them. The extract ends with him asking whether a statement of claim had been filed; it does not record the outcome of that case-management discussion or any further orders.