Claimant v Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew these claims at the preliminary hearing after accepting she was unable to establish who had caused her to suffer detriment because of any disclosures, unable to establish causation between any disclosure and any detriment, and the claims were out of time. The tribunal also found they had no reasonable prospect of success in any event.
The claimant made no mention during capability, investigation, disciplinary or appeal processes that she had raised any protected public interest disclosures or suffered detriment. She withdrew the claims at the preliminary hearing after accepting she could not prove the essential elements.
The tribunal found the claim has little reasonable prospect of success. The respondent conducted a thorough investigation, the disciplinary panel of three senior managers reasonably concluded there were 10 instances of fraudulent timesheets with forged Practice Assessor signatures, the claimant admitted writing names and dates herself, provided no reasonable explanation, and showed no desire to clear her name. Dismissal for gross misconduct was within the band of reasonable responses. A deposit order of £50 was made as a condition of continuing the claim.
Facts
The claimant was a Registered Nurse Degree Apprentice with the NHS Trust from April 2019 to October 2024. Following performance concerns in 2022-2023 and a capability process, she received a first written warning in August 2023 but was allowed to resume her apprenticeship. In 2024 the respondent's Counter Fraud department investigated concerns about falsified placement timesheets and forged Practice Assessor signatures. A disciplinary panel of three senior managers found the claimant had submitted 10 fraudulent timesheets, admitted writing Practice Assessors' names and dates herself, provided no satisfactory explanation, and showed no desire to clear her name. She was dismissed for gross misconduct on 2 October 2024. Her appeal was rejected in January 2025.
Decision
At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal found the claimant's whistleblowing detriment claims had no reasonable prospect of success and were also withdrawn by the claimant after she accepted she could not establish causation or identify who caused the alleged detriment. The unfair dismissal claim was found to have little reasonable prospect of success because the respondent had conducted a thorough investigation, reached reasonable conclusions on compelling evidence of fraud, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses for gross misconduct. A deposit order of £50 was made as a condition of continuing with the unfair dismissal claim.
Practical note
Dismissal for submitting fraudulent professional training documents with forged signatures will be fair where the employer conducts a thorough investigation, the employee admits key facts but provides no credible explanation, and demonstrates no effort to challenge the allegations.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6007280/2025
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Registered Nurse Degree Apprentice (Support Time and Recovery Worker)
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No