- 24-hour Emergency Line: 0300 30 32 442
A dental therapist entered into a four-year contract with a practice under a Skilled Worker visa, which guaranteed a standard 40-hour work week.
Upon starting the role, however, the clinician regularly received under 30 hours of work. To maintain their income, they were frequently obligated to travel to other locations, while operating in understaffed and unsanitary environments.
Concerned for their personal safety and GDC compliance, our member meticulously documented all communications and repeatedly raised grievances with management. Furthermore, they experienced distressing and unethical pressure from management to “upsell” private treatments to NHS patients.
As a consequence of these daily working conditions, the therapist’s mental health deteriorated, resulting in a formal diagnosis of anxiety and depression.
Left with no other option, the clinician secured a new contract and visa sponsorship with another employer and tendered their resignation to the practice.
The practice reacted by issuing a formal demand for £6,000 in liquidated damages to cover visa sponsorship costs, stipulating payment within 28 days under threat of subsequent legal action.
Following a collapse in communication, the dental therapist contacted Medical Defence Shield (MDS) for support in contesting the claim and securing a clean departure.
MDS reviewed the member’s contract and evidence and identified a number of contractual breaches on the part of their employer, including:
It was also clear that the company had not suffered harm from our member’s decision to terminate early, and not to the significant amount of £6000. Instead, this sum was a thinly veiled contractual penalty for early termination.
Following this detailed evaluation, we informed the member that the £6,000 demand was disproportionate, likely unenforceable, and functioned as a contractual penalty rather than an accurate reflection of financial loss.
To dispute the charge, our team resumed formal discussions on behalf of the clinician. We strengthened our argument by emphasizing that the practice’s failure to deliver the agreed hours, combined with the resulting travel expenses, established solid grounds for a counterclaim if the matter escalated to legal proceedings.
We then issued a Without Prejudice letter to the practice’s legal representation. This correspondence firmly detailed our member’s stance and demonstrated how the employer’s persistent contractual breaches left the clinician with no choice but to resign.
Our arguments focused on the unfairness of the exit fee given these workplace violations. The initial representations also drew attention to the practice’s failure to adhere to mandatory CQC and GDC hygiene regulations, an illegal demand for payment to facilitate an internal visa transfer, and the ongoing adverse effects of the hostile work environment on the therapist’s mental well-being.
As a result of MDS’ intervention and subsequent dialogue, a mutually acceptable settlement was reached to halt any further legal action. This conclusion provided reassurance to both sides, ensuring the clinician achieved the clean and secure departure they sought.
This case highlights the significant importance of having a signed and fully agreed upon contract in place before commencing work. While verbal agreements can hold legal weight, they are significantly more difficult to rely upon and can lead to costly and time consuming disputes. This situation also underscores the risk of proceeding on the basis of a draft or yet to be amended contract.
Furthermore, this case highlights the value of a clear and well documented record of all communicated issues. Finally, it emphasises the need for clinicians to be proactive in ensuring that all agreements are in writing and fully understood by all parties to avoid similar situations. A key takeaway is the importance of documenting every conversation, even those that occur informally via platforms like WhatsApp, as these can serve as crucial evidence of a developing dispute.
Without Prejudice correspondence, whilst not a necessary step, acts as a form of pre-action protocol that allows parties to negotiate and make settlement offers without those statements later being relied upon in formal court proceedings. These types of correspondence encourage honest settlement discussions without later legal risk.
If you’re facing a similar situation, don’t wait to seek support. Contact MDS as soon as possible to discuss your circumstances, our team will support you in making the best decision for you and your patients. Call our office on 0300 30 32 442 or email our case managers at [email protected] mentioning your membership number.
Not an MDS member? Get in touch and join today!
