Mr T Bragadeesh v Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and 4 others — 2023

The claimant brought a single whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B and s.48(1A) ERA 1996 arising from concerns about the TAVI process and later treatment of Patient D. The tribunal identified 13 alleged protected disclosures and 29 alleged detriments. It held that several of the claimant's communications were protected disclosures, including the July 2020 Patient A communications, the June 2021 email about the alleged cover-up, and the December 2021 consultants' letter, but many other alleged disclosures were either not made out or were not material to the outcome.

Limitation was central. The claim was presented on 13 December 2022, so anything before 3 August 2022 was potentially out of time after ACAS early conciliation. The tribunal held that the only allegations capable of being in time were the failure to investigate the grievance against Dr John on 22 April and 26 September 2022, the alleged failure to interview the claimant in the MHPS investigation in late August 2022, and the continuing pursuit of the MHPS investigation up to November 2022. It rejected any reasonable-practicability argument and found that the earlier allegations were time-barred.

On the grievance allegations, the tribunal accepted Mr Nearney's evidence that the Trust did not investigate because an inquiry into Patient D was already underway, supported by external expert opinion, and because of the practical and evidential difficulties in investigating events that were already some time old. It found that this was a genuine explanation and that there was no evidential basis for concluding that the refusal was materially influenced by any protected disclosure. It also rejected the claim that the MHPS process had subjected the claimant to a detriment by not interviewing him sooner, finding that HR initially tried to reduce stress and that the claimant later had the chance to answer questions in writing or by interview.

The tribunal further held that the decision to commence and continue the MHPS investigation was taken because of credible evidence of potential serious misconduct concerning Patient D, after two external reports, GMC input, and internal preliminary enquiries. It found that Dr Makani was aware of the claimant's whistleblowing history but was not manipulated by any other respondent and did not act on the ground that the claimant had made protected disclosures. The judgment therefore dismissed the entire claim and recorded no monetary award.