Claimant v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the Claimant did not make protected disclosures as alleged, and that the actions complained of (including IT access removal, MHPS proceedings, sick pay reduction, and FTSU investigation handling) were not undertaken because of any protected disclosures. The tribunal found the respondent's decisions were reasonable, based on legitimate concerns about the Claimant's conduct, and not retaliatory. The tribunal found the Claimant to be an unreliable witness who failed to provide evidence supporting allegations of conspiracy or collusion.
The tribunal found that most alleged disclosures did not constitute protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996. Where disclosures were accepted (e.g., the letter of 19 April 2023, the complaint of 22 May 2023, and the ET1 claim form), the tribunal nonetheless found that none of the alleged detriments were done on the ground that the Claimant had made those disclosures. The tribunal accepted the respondents' explanations for their actions as legitimate and unrelated to whistleblowing.
Facts
The Claimant, a Consultant in Paediatric Dentistry employed since 2014, alleged she raised numerous protected disclosures concerning patient safety, understaffing, and unsafe practices between 2022 and 2023. She claimed she was subjected to multiple detriments including disciplinary proceedings (MHPS process), removal of IT access, reduction in sick pay, and delays in investigating her Freedom to Speak Up (FTSU) complaints. The Respondents maintained that their actions were due to longstanding concerns about the Claimant's conduct, including bullying and harassment of junior staff, dating back to 2018, and were unrelated to any disclosures.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that most of the alleged disclosures did not constitute protected disclosures, and where they did (such as the letter of 19 April 2023, complaint of 22 May 2023, and the ET1), the alleged detriments were not done on the ground of those disclosures. The tribunal found the Claimant to be an unreliable witness who made serious allegations without evidence. The tribunal accepted the Respondents' explanations that their actions were driven by legitimate concerns about the Claimant's conduct and behaviour towards colleagues, not by her whistleblowing.
Practical note
A claimant alleging whistleblowing detriment must demonstrate both that a protected disclosure was made and that the detrimental treatment was materially influenced by that disclosure; the tribunal will scrutinise credibility closely and will not infer conspiracy or retaliation in the absence of cogent evidence, particularly where the employer can show a consistent and documented history of conduct concerns predating the alleged disclosures.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2210917/2023
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 28
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Consultant in Paediatric Dentistry
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister