Stephen Levinson analyses a case of judicial independence
If infuriating both government and the media at the same time is the best test of an independent judiciary, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Rose Gibb v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 678, [2010] All ER (D) 229 (Jun) demonstrates that three members of the Court of Appeal pass with flying colours.
Background
The NHS trust entered into a compromise agreement ending the employment of its chief executive and was prevented from honouring its contractual commitments by orders from ministers. To avoid the contract the Trust relied on its own wrongdoing by arguing that it had been irrationally generous in the terms it had offered and therefore had acted beyond its powers (or ultra vires, as we are no longer supposed to say).
There had been outbreaks of clostridium difficile from 2004 to 2006 in hospitals managed by the Trust: many patients were infected and 90 deaths resulted. There was an understandable public outcry. The Healthcare Commission (HCC) undertook an investigation. After sharing its draft report with
