Claimant v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Detriments 2, 3, 4 (allegations re nurses lowering standards, shouting at bed management, using clinical notes to criticise), 5 (disciplinary instigation), 6 (relocation from Bradgate), 7 (ongoing suspension from on-call), 9 (delay resolving whistleblowing complaints), 10 (inadequate resolution), 11 (irrational disciplinary conclusions), 13 (grievance not taken seriously) all struck out for being presented outside the 3-month time limit. Claimant accepted it was reasonably practicable to present in time.
Detriment 8 (removal of teaching responsibilities) failed on merits. Tribunal found as fact this did not happen. Detriment 12 (failure to respond re on-call return) also failed on merits — claimant herself was the obstacle to return, not the Trust.
Claimant failed to prove what the final straw was. Tribunal found she had decided to resign before the alleged final straw email. Even if that email were the straw, the only proven detriment (a delay in investigating one protected disclosure) combined with the email did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
Claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures failed because constructive dismissal was not established, and there was no evidence protected disclosures caused resignation.
Facts
Dr Benaris, a consultant psychiatrist at an NHS Trust mental health unit, claimed she made several protected disclosures about patient safety between September 2020 and July 2021. She alleged she was then subjected to numerous detriments including pressure to move wards, disciplinary processes, removal from on-call duties and teaching, and inadequate investigation of her concerns. She resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal. The Trust accepted some disclosures were protected but denied any causal link to the alleged treatment. The workplace was acknowledged to be toxic and dysfunctional with widespread interpersonal tensions.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not a reliable witness and that most alleged detriments either did not occur or were not causally linked to protected disclosures. The majority of detriment claims were struck out for being presented outside the 3-month time limit. Two detriment claims within time failed on their merits. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the claimant could not prove what the final straw was that caused her resignation, and the proven matters did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. All claims were dismissed.
Practical note
A claimant alleging whistleblowing detriment must prove both that detriments occurred and that they were causally connected to protected disclosures; mere assertions in a toxic workplace without credible evidence will fail, and time limits will be strictly enforced where the claimant concedes reasonable practicability.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2601354/2023
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 14
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Consultant Psychiatrist
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister