University Hospital of North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust v Ms L Fairhall

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeJudge Tayler
Neutral CitationUKEAT/0150/20/VP
Subject MatterNot landmark
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
Published date01 July 2021
Copyright 2021
Appeal No. UKEAT/0150/20/VP
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 25 March 2021
Judgment handed down on
30 June 2021
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER
(SITTING ALONE)
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH TEES & HARTLEPOOL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
APPELLANT
MS L FAIRHALL RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0150/20/VP
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant DAVID READE
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
Instructed by:
Hempsons
The Exchange,
Station Parade,
Harrogate,
HG1 1DY
For the Respondent MATTHEW RUDD
(Of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Thrive Law,
15 Queen Square,
Leeds,
LS2 8AJ
UKEAT/0150/20/VP
SUMMARY
TOPIC NUMBER: 32A WHISTLEBLOWING, PROTECTED DISCLOSURES
The claimant made a number of protected disclosures, after which she informed the respondent
that she intended to invoke the formal whistle blowing policy. The claimant was then suspended,
subject to disciplinary investigation (during which she raised a grievance that was rejected),
dismissed and her appeal against dismissal rejected. The tribunal considered that the claimant’s
treatment was not only grossly unfair, but was the culmination of a process, involving numerous
people, designed to get rid of her because she had made protected disclosures. The tribunal found
that the claimant had been dismissed for the reason, or principle reason, that she had made
protected disclosures. This was not a Jhuti type case in which an innocent decision maker was
manipulated by others into dismissing the claimant, but a case in which, on a proper reading of
the tribunal's judgment, it was found as fact that the reason, or principle reason, of the disciplinary
hearing panel for dismissing the claimant was her making protected disclosures. The Tribunal
properly considered the reasoning process of the chair of the panel, the only witness called by the
respondent to explain the reasoning process of the panel. The appeal against the protected
disclosure dismissal claim was rejected. While it was clear that the tribunal concluded that the
dismissal was the end of a process aimed at achieving the dismissal of the claimant, the individual
claims of pre-dismissal detriment were not considered in sufficient detail to be Meek compliant
because there was insufficient analysis of who were the relevant decision makers in respect of
each specific detriment and why it was concluded they had acted on the grounds of the claimant
having made protected disclosures. The pre-dismissal claims were remitted to the tribunal for
further consideration, if necessary.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT