NHS Foundation Trust L (Appellant) v Dr MN (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0029

Parties

Appellant(s)

NHS Foundation Trust L

Respondent(s)

Dr MN

Issue

Did the employment contract incorporate a term contained in an internal policy document ‘Handling concerns about the conduct, performance and health of medical and dental staff’ known as E27? Did that term require that the role of Case Manager in an investigation under the policy be carried out by the Medical Director personally such that it cannot be delegated to another person?

Facts

Dr MN is a Consultant in Diabetes and General Paediatrics employed by NHS Foundation Trust L (“the Trust” or “the Appellant”). Previously, Dr MN worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital (“COCH”) as a Paediatric Registrar on the same Neonatal Unit as Lucy Letby. He then left COCH and started working at another hospital (“the Hospital”). Dr MN entered into a written contract of employment with the Trust on 1 July 2018. In December 2016, Dr MN arranged for Lucy Letby to attend a period of supervised observation at the Hospital. On 18 August 2023, Lucy Letby was convicted of the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others at COCH. Dr MN provided assistance to the police with their investigation into Lucy Letby and gave evidence at her criminal trial. After the trial, Dr MN contacted the Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the Trust to inform him of his involvement in the trial and of Lucy Letby’s observations at the Hospital. On 29 August 2023, the Trust received a formal complaint by the mother of Baby N alleging that Dr MN had breached confidentiality in discussions with Lucy Letby. On 23 January 2024, the Trust informed Dr MN that it intended to undertake a formal investigation into his involvement in the arrangements for Lucy Letby’s visits to the Hospital. The scope of the investigation also included Dr MN’s communications with Lucy Letby in the care of Baby N. The Director of Corporate Affairs, Ms Y, had been appointed as the “Case Manager” for the investigation by the Chief Executive. The letter stated that the investigation would not be carried out under the national framework “Maintaining High Professional Standards in the Modern NHS” (“MHPS”) which was adopted locally under policy E27. The Trust stated that this was because the investigation did not concern Mr MN’s conduct or performance. After correspondence with Dr MN’s legal representatives, the Trust agreed to apply MHPS to the investigation as part of a general obligation to treat Dr MN fairly. On 12 April 2024, Dr MN was informed in writing that, with regard to the application of MHPS to the investigation, Mr Z, as the Medical Director, will assume the nominal role of Case Manager but will delegate responsibility to Ms Y. Dr MN successfully brought a claim for breach of contract against the Trust, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the investigation being carried out. In compliance with the order of the High Court, Mr Z has now assumed the role of Case Manager in Dr MN’s investigation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Trust’s appeal. The Trust now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

12 March 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top