Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1992] QB 333
Employer’s liability; doctors’ contract of employment; whether duty not to require working excessive hours.
Facts
Dr Johnstone, a junior doctor at University College Hospital was required under his employment contract to work 40 basic hours, and to be available on call for a further 48 hours per week. He worked over 88 hours for several weeks and became ill as a result. He brought an action seeking a declaration that he should not have to work more than 72 hours per week, and damages in negligence for an alleged failure to take reasonable care of his safety in the workplace. The defendant appealed against a decision refusing to strike out his action.
Issues
The defendant is under a common law duty of care to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees in the workplace per Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57. The defendants contended that under clause 4(b) of the contract of employment, Dr Johnstone was contractually obliged to work 40 basic hours and be available on call for a further 48 hours and, therefore, his claim was an abuse of process. Dr Johnstone asserted the contractual obligation was void under s2(1) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and that an 88-hour working week was contrary to public policy.
Decision/Outcome
The defendant’s appeal was dismissed. A stipulation that a doctor should work such hours would reasonably foreseeably result in damage to his health. The express contractual term requiring the 88-hour week had to be placed in context. The implied term requiring trust and confidence in every employment contract, and the common law duty to take reasonable steps to provide a safe system of work co-existed, and therefore, Dr Johnstone had a right to attempt to establish his case at trial.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the 1992 Court of Appeal decision in Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1992] QB 333. The core legal principles discussed — the employer’s common law duty of care as established in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57, and the interaction between express contractual terms and implied duties of trust and confidence — remain good law.
However, readers should be aware of significant statutory developments that now provide the primary regulatory framework governing working hours for junior doctors and workers generally. The Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833), implementing the EU Working Time Directive, introduced statutory limits on working hours, including a 48-hour average working week. Although the NHS originally secured a derogation for junior doctors, this was phased out, and junior doctors have been subject to the 48-hour limit under the 2003 amendment to those Regulations. The case therefore has greater historical than practical significance in terms of its facts, though its contribution to the development of employer liability and the relationship between contractual and tortious duties in employment law remains relevant. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, discussed in the article, has been largely superseded in the business-to-consumer context by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, though it continues to apply in business-to-business contracts; in the employment context, its role as argued in this case remains of academic interest.
