Case 1806994/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Dr S E Middleton v York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806994/2019
- Decision date
- 14 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr S E Middleton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr S E Middleton had been employed by York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust since 2006 as Psychological Wellbeing Lead in Occupational Health. In October 2018 she raised concerns about the proposed RAFT debriefing project, including concerns about NICE guidance, and the tribunal accepted that her email of 22 October 2018 was a protected disclosure. The tribunal found that the RAFT issue itself did not amount, either alone or with the later grievance handling, to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
The tribunal held that the main repudiatory breach was the creation of an 8c Lead Consultant Psychologist post for Ruth Dixon, which included significant parts of the claimant's existing leadership and strategic role. It found that the respondent failed to consult the claimant about the substantial changes within the team she led, that the grievance and appeal process took too narrow a view of the respective roles, and that the claimant's position was undermined. The tribunal rejected the case that there had been a breach of an express contractual term, but held there was a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned in response to that breach and did not affirm the contract. It therefore upheld the unfair dismissal claim. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 was dismissed because the tribunal found the respondent's principal reason was the redeployment of Ruth Dixon and the associated financial and staffing considerations, not the protected disclosure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found a constructive dismissal on the facts and held the unfair dismissal claim under sections 94-98 ERA 1996 succeeded. Remedy was left for a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal accepted the claimant made a protected disclosure on 22 October 2018, but found the principal reason for the respondent's conduct and the resignation was the redeployment of Ruth Dixon and financial/resource considerations, not the disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Woods v WM Car Services
- Omilaju final straw
- Buckland objective test
- W A Goold v McConnell
- Blackburn v LD Stores
- Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council
- Wright v North Ayrshire Council / Abbey Cars
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.