Claimant v Portsmouth Hospitals University National Health Service Trust

The tribunal found that the claimant did a protected act on 24 January 2023 by raising concerns about discrimination against overseas qualified doctors and the public sector equality duty. The tribunal concluded that Dr Rowlands' decision to terminate the claimant's assignment was significantly influenced by this protected act. The protected act and the manner of doing it were effectively one and the same thing on the facts.

Allegation that respondent terminated assignment with inadequate notice (one week instead of two). The tribunal found the real reason for one week's notice was the respondent's belief that this was the usual notice period. The protected act was not a significant influence on this decision.

Allegation that respondent failed to provide a reason for termination. The tribunal found that the respondent did provide a reason during the meeting with Dr Rowlands. The failure to provide written reasons was because the respondent did not consider it necessary, not because of the protected act.

Allegation of failure to respond to grievance or delay in responding. The tribunal found the reasons for not investigating and the delay in responding were nothing to do with the protected act relied upon by the claimant.

Allegation that respondent refused to investigate grievance or hold a grievance meeting. The tribunal found the real reason for not investigating was that the claimant was no longer engaged on a contract and had not been for three months, not the protected act.

Claimant withdrew all claims of detriment for making a public interest disclosure (whistleblowing claims) during the hearing.