Ms Karen Pracy v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust — 2023

Ms Pracy worked as a Health Care Assistant on the Trust's mental health hospital bank. The tribunal found that her emails and reports in January and March 2021 about neglected pets at patients' homes were qualifying protected disclosures within section 43A and section 43B ERA 1996. It accepted that, as a matter of law, there was a duty to act to avoid unnecessary suffering under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that her concerns were raised in the public interest. The tribunal relied on Blackbay Ventures v Gahir, Cavendish Munro, Kilraine, and Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed when analysing the disclosures.

In August 2021, after being told that a patient had seven cats at home, Ms Pracy went to the property with the patient's consent and the agreement of the nurse in charge, found the animals in poor condition, and later contacted the RSPCA when she considered the Trust had not put a sufficient plan in place. The tribunal accepted her account that she had permission to attend, that she kept management informed, and that the criticism that she had acted without authorisation or outside professional boundaries was not made out. It also accepted that her later email confirming the RSPCA report was a further protected disclosure, and that the outside report fell within section 43G ERA 1996.

The tribunal held that the de-registration was a detriment materially influenced by the RSPCA disclosure, applying the causation approach in Fecitt v NHS Manchester. It found that the management response hardened after the RSPCA call, that the investigation was incomplete, and that the stated reasons for de-registration were based on an unfair and inaccurate account of events. Compensation was assessed only on past loss of earnings, with no future loss, and the claimant was awarded £20,713.