Cases6003059/2024

Claimant v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust

26 June 2024Before Employment Judge R AdkinsonMidlands Eastremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application on the basis that it was not likely the claimant would prove he made protected disclosures. The alleged disclosures appeared to convey concerns/opinions rather than information of facts, did not sufficiently indicate breaches of legal obligations, and the tribunal was not persuaded they were reasonably believed to be in the public interest. Even if the disclosures were protected, the tribunal found the two thorough investigations and dismissal decision showed the reason for dismissal was conduct, not the alleged disclosures.

Facts

The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct by an NHS Trust following two investigations into allegations about his conduct, including unprofessional use of social media and failure to inform his manager of a police arrest. The claimant alleged he had made protected disclosures about data protection breaches and failures to report sexual harassment. He applied for interim relief claiming automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application. The judge found it was not likely the claimant would prove he made protected disclosures because his communications appeared to convey concerns and opinions rather than factual information, did not sufficiently indicate legal breaches, and were not reasonably believed to be in the public interest. Even if they were protected disclosures, the dismissal appeared to be for conduct reasons based on thorough, fair investigations.

Practical note

Interim relief applications for whistleblowing require a very high threshold - communications must clearly convey factual information showing legal breaches reasonably believed to be in the public interest, not merely allegations or concerns, and the disclosure must appear likely to be the principal reason for dismissal.

Legal authorities cited

Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] ICR 325Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] IRLR 450Ministry of Justice v Sarfaz [2011] IRLR 562London City Airport Limited v Chacko [2013] IRLR 610Simply Smile Manor House Ltd v Ter-Berg [2020] ICR 570Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731Fincham v HM Prison ServiceKorashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board [2012] IRLR 4Eiger Securities LLP v Korshunova [2017] IRLR 115Chandhok v Tirkey UKEAT/0190/14Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850

Statutes

GDPRERA 1996 s.128-132ERA 1996 s.129ERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 s.43B(1)Data Protection Act 2018

Case details

Case number
6003059/2024
Decision date
26 June 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No