Morwenna Haslam v BMI Healthcare Ltd: 3352856/2017 and 3307549/2018
| Judgment Date | 15 November 2019 |
| Citation | 3352856/2017 and 3307549/2018 |
| Published date | 15 August 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case Number: 3352856/2017
3307549/2018
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
M
orwenna
Haslam
v
BMI Healthcare Limited
Heard at: Watford On: 27 March – 11 April 2019
30 April and 1 & 2 May 2019 (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Bedeau
Members: Mr I Bone
Mrs I Sood
Appearances
For the Claimant: Ms V von Wachter, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms K Newton, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claim of unfair dismissal is well-founded.
2. The direct sex discrimination claim is not well-founded and is dismissed.
3. The claim of discrimination arising in consequence of disability is not well-
founded and is dismissed.
4. The claim of harassment related to disability is not well-founded and is
dismissed.
5. The claim of harassment related to sex is struck out as it was presented
out of time.
6. The public interest disclosure detriment claim is not well-founded and is
dismissed.
7. The public interest disclosure unfair dismissal claim is not well-founded
and is dismissed.
8. The claims of victimisation, section 27(2)(a) Equality Act 2010, are not
well-founded and are dismissed.
Case Number: 3352856/2017
3307549/2018
2
9. The wrongful dismissal claim has been proved.
10. The claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments is dismissed upon
withdrawal.
11. The remedy hearing is listed on 4 and 5 November 2019, if not settled
earlier.
REASONS
1. By claim forms presented to the tribunal on 21 December 2017 and 1 June
2018, the claimant made claims of: unfair dismissal; sex discrimination;
disability discrimination; public interest disclosure; detriment and dismissal;
breach of contract, and further claims of sex and disability discrimination.
2. In the responses presented to the tribunal on 1 December 2017 and on 8
July 2018, all of the claims are denied.
3. At the preliminary hearing held on 25 June 2018 before Employment
Judge George, the claims and issues were to be amended following
further particulars to be served by the claimant on or before 9 July 2018.
The parties were ordered to agree a revised list of issues by 6 August
2018 and the case was set down for final hearing over 15 days.
4. On or around 29 August 2018, the parties agreed a consolidated list of the
claims and issues which we now set out below.
The consolidated list of issues
“Case No: 3352857/2017
Unfair dismissal
1. What was the reason for the claimant’s dismissal and was it a potentially
fair reason within the meaning of a s 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act
1996 (“ERA”)? The respondent will say that the claimant was dismissed
by reason of her conduct, or for some other substantial reason, both of
which are potentially fair reasons.
2. Did the respondent have a genuine belief:
a) in a set of facts amounting to misconduct? And/or
b) that there had been a break down in the trust and confidence
between the claimant and respondent.
3. Was this belief based on reasonable grounds?
Case Number: 3352856/2017
3307549/2018
3
4. Did the respondent carry out a reasonable investigation?
5. Did dismissal fall within the range of reasonable responses? The claimant
will say it did not as:
a) the following reasons, either alone or taken together could not
constitute gross misconduct:
i. alleged sexual impropriety with a partner
ii alleged poor leadership; and
iii alleged unavailability.
6. Was the dismissal procedurally fair? The claimant will say it was not and
relies on the following alleged particulars (all of which are disputed by the
respondent):
a) That she was suspended for no good reason and for an
unconscionably long period – over 1 year.
b) That she was subject to humiliating and degrading questioning about
her private life, sexual practices and undergarments as part of a
purported objective investigation;
c) Her legitimate grievances about the length of her suspension were
ignored;
d) That she was given very limited access to documents and material
that would have helped her defend her cause;
e) That she was dismissed for matters that were evidenced by irrelevant
factors, gossip, hearsay and malice on the part of the witnesses
interviewed, many of whom had witnessed nothing other than what
they had been told by others who, in many cases had also not
personally witnessed the events complained of;
f) That the respondent failed to take into account any evidence which
supported the claimant’s position preferring to believe:
i. Alleged unsubstantiated and unparticularised accounts of
many individuals whose credibility must have been suspect
by reason of them being performance managed by the
claimant at the time; and
ii. Dr Dabbagh who the claimant alleges had his ego insulted
when she rebuffed his sexual advances;
g) That the appeal process was a sham and did not comply with its own
stated aims; and
To continue reading
Request your trial