Claimant v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim concerns dismissal for making protected disclosures contrary to s.103A ERA. Respondent argued claim should be struck out, but tribunal found factual disputes required resolution at full hearing. Time limit and employment status issues held over to full hearing.
Claim against R1 and R2. Respondent sought strike out on basis there were no facts from which discrimination could be inferred. Tribunal found unusual facts (blacklisting, termination on first day) could potentially shift burden, requiring full hearing to resolve factual disputes.
Claim against R1 and R2 based on alleged protected acts made to previous employer. Tribunal found claimant had reasonable prospects of establishing at least some protected acts and that factual disputes about reason for termination required full hearing.
Whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B ERA against R2 only concerning termination. Tribunal found claimant had reasonable prospects of satisfying initial burden that protected disclosures were a factor, requiring full hearing to determine causation.
Facts
Dr Razoq, a locum consultant, was engaged by Walsall NHS Trust via an off-framework agency on 23 January 2023 but his contract was terminated the same day before he worked. He alleged the termination was because of protected disclosures and protected acts he had made years earlier to his previous employer, Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust, concerning patient safety, PPE during Covid, and race discrimination. Ms Pedley, a senior employee, had worked at both Trusts and appeared to have been involved in blacklisting the claimant at the previous Trust and raising concerns about him at Walsall.
Decision
The tribunal refused the respondent's applications to strike out the claims or order a deposit. The judge found significant factual disputes at the heart of the case, particularly concerning who made the decision to terminate and why. The claimant had reasonable prospects of establishing protected disclosures and protected acts, and the unusual facts (blacklisting, same-day termination) required explanation at a full hearing.
Practical note
Whistleblowing and discrimination claims should rarely be struck out where there are core factual disputes about motivation, even where protected disclosures/acts were made years earlier to a different employer, if there is a connecting individual between the two organisations.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1304564/2023
- Decision date
- 19 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Consultant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No