Claimant v Nuffield House Surgery
Outcome
Individual claims
This is an interim relief application only. The tribunal found the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at full hearing on the claim that she was dismissed for making protected disclosures about expired Patient Group Directives (PGDs) in breach of legal obligations and endangering health and safety. The tribunal was satisfied the disclosures were made, were in the public interest, and that the claimant's belief was reasonable. The respondent's explanation for dismissal (lack of ARTP qualification for an Enhanced Practice Nurse role) was found implausible and unsupported by the contract, which described her role as Advanced Clinical Practitioner working five days per week.
Facts
The claimant, employed as an Advanced Clinical Practitioner from 1 July 2024, discovered on 11 September 2024 that the surgery was operating under expired Patient Group Directives (PGDs) in breach of legal requirements. She raised this with management and partners. One week later, the senior partner Dr Kehinde attempted to reduce her hours. On 30 October 2024, she was summarily dismissed with one week's notice, allegedly because her role as 'Enhanced Practice Nurse' was not achieving what was intended. The claimant contends she was dismissed for whistleblowing; the respondent claims she lacked a required ARTP qualification.
Decision
The tribunal granted interim relief, finding the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at full hearing. The tribunal accepted she made protected disclosures about legal breaches endangering health and safety. The respondent's explanation was implausible: the contract stated her role as Advanced Clinical Practitioner working five days per week, contradicting claims she was an Enhanced Practice Nurse working four days. The ARTP qualification was never mentioned in her contract or dismissal letter, and the timing of dismissal (four months after employment without the qualification) made no sense.
Practical note
Employers must provide credible, contemporaneously documented reasons for dismissal when facing whistleblowing claims; vague, inconsistent explanations that contradict the contract and employment records will not satisfy the tribunal at interim relief stage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6018307/2024
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Advanced Clinical Practitioner
- Service
- 4 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No