Claimant v Harris Memorial Surgery
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief application only. The tribunal found it was not 'likely' (meaning 'a good chance', higher than balance of probabilities) that the final tribunal would find the dismissal was automatically unfair under s103A ERA 1996. There were genuine factual disputes about whether protected disclosures were made and whether they caused the dismissal. The respondent had clear documentary evidence supporting conduct-based dismissal predating external disclosures. The application for interim relief was dismissed but the underlying claim will proceed to full hearing.
The claimant alleged multiple protected disclosures between January and August 2025 concerning patient safety, regulatory compliance, GDPR breaches, and staff management issues. The tribunal found genuine disputes of fact about whether these constituted qualifying disclosures, particularly regarding reasonable belief and public interest. The tribunal noted insufficient documentary evidence before it to assess most alleged disclosures. Only the 6 August 2025 disclosure to ICO/CQC appeared on its face capable of being protected, but issues of reasonable belief (made during disciplinary process) meant it was not 'likely' this would succeed. Full merits hearing required.
Facts
The claimant was Head of Compliance and Patient Experience at a GP Surgery for 17 months until dismissed on 22 August 2025 for misconduct. He alleged he made protected disclosures about patient safety, regulatory compliance and data protection between January and August 2025, including to CQC, NHS ICB and ICO. The respondent commenced disciplinary proceedings on 13 June 2025 based on eight allegations of misconduct, investigated by an external Peninsula consultant who recommended a final written warning. The respondent dismissed the claimant on 22 August 2025, citing misconduct, breakdown of trust, and short service. The same day, the ICB FTSU Guardian contacted the claimant confirming an investigation.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief under s128-129 ERA 1996. It found it was not 'likely' (meaning a good chance, higher than balance of probabilities) that the final tribunal would find automatic unfair dismissal. There were genuine factual disputes about whether qualifying protected disclosures were made, particularly regarding reasonable belief, and whether they caused the dismissal. The respondent had clear documentary evidence of conduct issues predating external disclosures and a disciplinary process conducted by an external consultant, meaning the outcome would turn on factual findings at a full merits hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases require more than arguable claims—claimants must show a 'good chance' of success, and will fail where there are genuine factual disputes about whether disclosures were protected and whether they caused dismissal, particularly where the employer has contemporaneous documentary evidence of legitimate conduct concerns.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6031657/2025
- Decision date
- 1 October 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Head of Compliance and Patient Experience
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No