Sacked eye surgeon gets £2.4m settlement from Gov

Tuesday 02 November 2021

The Government has agreed to pay £2.4m out of court to settle a long-running legal battle with an eye surgeon, who was unfairly sacked just one week before he started his job at the hospital nine years ago.

Amar Alwitry had previously submitted a £8m claim - a sum comprising losses in terms of salary, private practice income and pension rights, as well as future losses up to the age of 65 - as part of Royal Court proceedings.

The Chief Minister, Senator John Le Fondré, told the States Assembly this morning that the out-of-court settlement agreed was “substantially less” than what had been previously been suggested in the public domain. 

He also said the States Employment Board had done “its very best” to limit the damages, taking advice from local and UK professionals. 

"This SEB inherited this case in 2018, however the matter of Mr Alwitry, a consultant ophthalmologist, arose from a situation in 2012 whereby the Royal Court has subsequently found he had been unlawfully dismissed. This has been going on for some 9 years, and commenced some two SEB’s before the present one.  " the Chief Minister told the Assembly.

"The SEB has done its very best to limit the damages as much as possible and has taken and followed extensive local and UK professional advice."

 The confidential settlement was made out of court, and a gross sum of £2.369m was agreed. 

“The matter was resolved by way of a confidential out of court settlement whereby the States Employment Board has agreed to pay Mr Alwitry £2,369,000 gross in respect of his claimed losses as a result of the termination of his contract of employment, and neither party is entitled to comment further on the terms of this settlement," he said.

“The net sum retained by Mr Alwitry after he has settled his tax and other liabilities remains confidential. Some matters relating to costs remain outstanding and subject to further court determination, and neither party can comment on this.”

The figure doesn’t include legal costs to be paid to Mr Alwitry, which the Chief Minister said remain outstanding and will need to be decided by the Court at a later stage.

The dispute between the States Employment Board (SEB) and Amar Alwitry has been ongoing since 2012, when he was dismissed just one week before starting his new role in the island.

The Jersey-born Consultant Ophthalmologist has fended off multiple legal challenges from the SEB - which manages all of the Government’s employment matters – over the years: first at trial, then in the Court of Appeal and in the Privy Council, which all ruled in his favour.

In the original judgment from the Royal Court at the conclusion of the trial, Royal Court Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith agreed with a previous finding by the States Complaints Board and said that Dr Alwitry had been treated "most unfairly" and was given no opportunity to answer the allegations against him or given any indication that the Hospital was considering terminating his contract before he had even started work. He was also denied an appeal.

They said that "due process matters" and that Dr Alwitry's side of the story should have been heard before his behaviour was described as "atrocious" or "aggressive" or "duplicitous" and dismissing him without notice.

The Court found that the States Employment Board (SEB) had no right to end Dr Alwitry's contact without cause or "for some other substantial reason". They also found that the surgeon had not repudiated his contract, entitling the SEB to terminate it. They therefore concluded that the termination of the doctor's contract was not valid.

Having repeatedly failed to get Mr Alwitry’s complaint overturned, the SEB applied to the Royal Court in 2020 so that his compensation would be reduced to “de minimis sums."

The Royal Court, however, threw out the SEB attempt to put a cap on the claim, blasting it as an underhand attempt to open up the whole case again.

In light of the SEB's "unreasonable" conduct, the Royal Court concluded that Mr Alwitry should be entitled to a more generous portion of his legal costs back than he otherwise would have been - pushing up the Government's legal bill when the court proceedings finally come to an end.