Claimant v Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant brought 14 separate detriment claims arising from four alleged protected disclosures relating to alleged data protection breaches (accessing lone working folder inappropriately). Tribunal found only one disclosure (8 January 2024 telephone call to Mr Nichols) met the statutory test for a protected disclosure. All 14 detriments failed because the tribunal found none were materially influenced by the protected disclosure. All detriments were inevitable consequences of the incident on 6 January 2024 and subsequent investigation. Tribunal found respondent acted reasonably and proportionately throughout, and that the data protection issue was a very minor part of a much larger picture involving serious conduct allegations.
Facts
Claimant, a newly qualified mental health nurse with 3 months' experience post-qualification, was involved in a serious incident at work on 6 January 2024. She showed a colleague (Ms O'Sullivan) a distressing video from her home, left work, and when police were called by the colleague for safeguarding reasons, returned and became highly emotional, distressed, verbally abusive to colleagues, and was involved in an altercation with police. The Claimant alleged Ms O'Sullivan inappropriately accessed her personal data from a lone working folder to provide her details to police. Respondent conducted fact-finding, placed Claimant on reflective leave, then redeployed her to another site (Elmleigh Hospital) while a workplace investigation was conducted into her conduct on 6 January. A disciplinary hearing ultimately resulted in 'No Further Action' in May 2024.
Decision
All 14 detriment claims dismissed. Tribunal found only one of four alleged protected disclosures (8 January telephone call) met the statutory test. However, none of the 14 alleged detriments (suspension, redeployment, investigation process, restrictions on training, supervision issues, risk assessment) were materially influenced by the protected disclosure. All actions taken were reasonable, proportionate responses to the serious incident of 6 January and part of a legitimate investigation process. The data protection issue was a minor element in a much larger picture and did not influence decision-making.
Practical note
In whistleblowing detriment claims, even where a protected disclosure is established, the claimant must prove material causation: a reasonable investigation into serious conduct allegations will not amount to unlawful detriment simply because the employee raised a peripheral data protection concern during the same period.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002717/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Registered Mental Health Nurse, Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team (CRHTT), Band 5
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No