Doctor Emile Aboud v Spire Healthcare Limited — 2024

Dr Emile Aboud was employed by Spire Healthcare Limited as a Senior Resident Medical Officer at Spire Bristol until summary dismissal on 8 December 2022. The tribunal found that on 9 October 2022 he brought a friend who was not a Spire patient into the hospital without permission, used a closed outpatient room to administer Botox, charged her, and left a box containing medical items in the reception area. It found that he knew, or ought to have known, that he needed management consent and that hospital policies on patient safety, infection control, lone working and use of premises were relevant to what he did.

The tribunal accepted that there was a procedural failing because Dr Aboud was not given interview transcripts before the disciplinary hearing, and that the wording of the allegation moved between bringing Spire into disrepute and potentially bringing Spire into disrepute. It found, however, that he knew the substance of the allegation, had an opportunity to respond to both actual and potential reputational impact, and that the appeal gave him a full opportunity to address matters not covered at the disciplinary stage. It found that Fiona Conway genuinely believed, on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, that Dr Aboud had committed gross misconduct, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

The alleged protected disclosures were comments made during the disciplinary hearing about two patient-report matters. The tribunal found that Dr Aboud disclosed information, but that the first matter concerned removal of information he accepted at the time was incorrect or irrelevant. For the second matter, it accepted that the comments were capable of referring to health and safety or record-keeping issues, but found insufficient evidence that Dr Aboud believed at the time that he was making disclosures tending to show breach of legal obligation or health and safety danger, and found that he raised the matters to support his position that he was a good employee rather than in the public interest.

The tribunal therefore concluded that the comments were not public interest disclosures. It also found that, even if they had been protected disclosures, they had no influence on the wording of the disciplinary allegation, the length of the adjournment, the finding of gross misconduct, the dismissal decision, or the appeal outcome. The ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure, protected disclosure detriment, and wrongful dismissal claims were all dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.