Claimant v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust

The tribunal found the claimant made several protected disclosures but was not subjected to any detriment on the ground that she had made those disclosures. Each alleged detriment was either not proven or was found to have a different cause unrelated to the protected disclosures.

The tribunal concluded the sole or principal reason for dismissal was not the claimant's protected disclosures. Mr Hastings (dismissing officer) was unaware of the protected disclosures. The reason for dismissal was the respondent's view that the claimant saw herself as not having to comply with management instructions.

The tribunal found dismissal was very clearly not within the range of reasonable responses. The respondent did not have reasonable grounds for believing the claimant guilty of the alleged misconduct, the investigation was not sufficiently thorough, and 42 years of unblemished service demanded consideration of alternatives to dismissal. The respondent appeared to have predetermined to dismiss the claimant.

The tribunal disagreed that the claimant committed a fundamental breach of contract. At most, she failed to follow an indirect oral instruction in a busy period. This did not show such total disregard for the contract as to entitle summary dismissal. The claimant had not acted for private gain and any failings were inadvertent errors during the Covid-19 pandemic pressures.