Claimant v Coldside Medical Practice

The tribunal rejected the claimant's characterisation of events. The meetings on 5 and 11 June 2024 did not involve aggressive or antagonistic treatment; the claimant was asked legitimate questions about misconduct and acted unprofessionally himself. The removal of the bookkeeping function was justified given concerns about the claimant's propriety and was not a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The allegations of lack of support and involvement in partner conflicts were wholly unsupported by the evidence. There was no breach of contract and the reasons given by the claimant in his resignation letter were wholly at odds with the reasons advanced in his claim.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make protected disclosures. In relation to the sustainability loan concerns, the claimant did not provide sufficient factual information to constitute a disclosure; he merely raised general cash flow concerns. There was no evidence he believed the issue was in the public interest, and nothing he said tended to show any of the matters in s43B(1) ERA. The approach taken was validated by the respondent's accountants. In relation to recruitment process concerns, again none of the statutory criteria were met: no reasonable belief of public interest, no genuine concerns (he was being obstructive and dishonest about a verbal reference), and nothing alluding to s43B(1) criteria.

Having found no protected disclosures were made, the detriment claim necessarily failed. In any event, the tribunal found the respondent's actions were entirely justified: the claimant was rightly accused of obstructing recruitment, the early termination was justified given his unacceptable post-resignation conduct, the updated reference was justified to avoid misleading another medical practice about his honesty, and the claimant's account of verbal harassment on 18 September was rejected.