Claimant v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant had been convicted of assault by beating in criminal proceedings with a higher burden of proof. Given the criminal conviction, the tribunal found vanishingly small chances that it would find the disciplinary panel did not genuinely believe on reasonable grounds that the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct. Any procedural unfairness was remedied on appeal.

Multiple specific allegations (3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 first half, 3.10, 3.25) relating to fabrication of evidence were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success given the criminal conviction. Other allegations relating to suspension (3.1, 3.3, 3.5) and grievance handling (3.8 second half, 3.11-3.15, 3.17, 3.23) were subject to deposit orders as having little reasonable prospect of success. Allegations relating to dismissal (3.19-3.21, 3.24) were allowed to proceed with deposit orders. Some allegations (3.9, 3.16, 3.18, 3.22) were allowed to proceed without strike-out or deposit order.

Multiple specific allegations (3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 first half, 3.10, 3.25) relating to fabrication of evidence were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success given the criminal conviction. Other allegations relating to suspension (3.1, 3.3, 3.5) and grievance handling (3.8 second half, 3.11-3.15, 3.17, 3.23) were subject to deposit orders as having little reasonable prospect of success. Allegations relating to dismissal (3.19-3.21, 3.24) were allowed to proceed with deposit orders. Some allegations (3.9, 3.16, 3.18, 3.22) were allowed to proceed without strike-out or deposit order.