Cases2402398/2023

Claimant v Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

12 February 2025Before Employment Judge ShotterLiverpoolin person

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalsucceeded

The Tribunal found the First Respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence through a series of actions culminating in the suspension on 2 December 2022. The claimant was subjected to concerted attacks, excluded without lawful basis, denied access to documents, and told it was 'time for her to go'. These amounted to a fundamental breach entitling the claimant to resign.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The Tribunal found the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant made protected disclosures under section 103A ERA. The claimant made disclosures about the Chair's bullying behaviour and its impact on the organisation and patient safety. The Tribunal found a causal link between the disclosures (especially PD1 and PD2) and the actions leading to her constructive dismissal, undertaken by 'Project Countess' to secure her exit.

Detrimentsucceeded

The Tribunal upheld multiple detriments under section 47B ERA done on the ground that the claimant made protected disclosures. These included: the Chair's aggressive behaviour on 18 July 2022, concerted verbal attacks at the Board meeting on 27 September 2022, being told 'time for her to go' on 22 October 2022, suspension on 2 December 2022 without lawful basis, denial of access to emails and documents, continuing exclusion, appointment of unsuitable commissioning managers, delay in investigating her bullying complaint, deletion of relevant data including WhatsApp messages and emails, and inappropriate GMC contact.

Facts

Dr Gilby was CEO of Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. She made protected disclosures in April and May 2022 about the Chair Ian Haythornthwaite's bullying and harassing behaviour towards her and others, and its impact on the organisation and patient safety. Following these disclosures, the Chair rejected mediation, subjected her to aggressive confrontations, and orchestrated attacks at Board meetings. On 22 October 2022 she was told it was 'time for her to go'. On 2 December 2022 she was suspended without lawful basis. A group of senior individuals (referred to as 'Project Countess') contrived to remove her from the organisation, deleted key documents including WhatsApp messages and appraisals, denied her access to emails and witnesses, and appointed unsuitable commissioning managers. The claimant resigned on 31 January 2023.

Decision

The Tribunal found the claimant's constructive dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal claims succeeded under sections 98 and 103A ERA. The Tribunal found the First Respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence through a series of actions culminating in unlawful suspension, and that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's protected disclosures. Multiple detriment claims under section 47B succeeded, causally linked to the protected disclosures. The Tribunal drew adverse inferences from the Respondents' wholesale destruction and non-disclosure of documents including WhatsApp messages, emails, and appraisals.

Practical note

This case demonstrates the serious consequences for employers who respond to protected disclosures about senior leadership misconduct by orchestrating the whistleblower's removal, suspending without lawful basis, and destroying key evidence — the Tribunal will draw adverse inferences and a concerted campaign to exit a CEO who blows the whistle will result in liability for constructive and automatic unfair dismissal and multiple detriments.

Legal authorities cited

Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2012] ICR 372Berriman v Delabole Slate Limited [1985] ICR 546Roberts v Wilsons Solicitors LLPGogay v Hertfordshire County Council [2000] IRLR 703London Borough of Lambeth v Agoreyo [2019] UKSC 33Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council [2004] EWCA Civ 859Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust v Abimbola [2015] UKEAT/0542/14Mezey v South West London & St George's Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 138Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.49(2)(b)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.43BEmployment Rights Act 1996 s.47BEmployment Rights Act 1996 s.95Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98Employment Rights Act 1996 s.103A

Case details

Case number
2402398/2023
Decision date
12 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
15
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Chief Executive Officer

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister