Mr P Sridhar v Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2022

The claimant, Mr P Sridhar, alleged whistleblowing detriment and victimisation arising out of three asserted disclosures and three protected acts connected with his long-running complaints about race discrimination, SAS doctors’ opportunities, and the appointment of Ms CB to a locum upper GI consultant role. The tribunal held that only PD1 contained sufficient specificity to amount to disclosure of information, but it was not protected because the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that it was in the public interest or that it showed wrongdoing. PD2 was found not to be protected because the statement about the Board “closing ranks” was understood as a comment about the Trust defending its position, not serious misconduct or a failure of the fit and proper person requirements. PD3 was also not protected: although it disclosed information about the locum consultant appointment and the specialist register requirement, the tribunal held the claimant had no reasonable belief of wrongdoing, relying in part on the earlier Balogun tribunal findings that the locum post was outside his expertise and that the advertising requirement was not racially discriminatory.

The tribunal then went on, in the alternative, to consider the alleged whistleblowing detriments. It rejected the complaint that the claimant was not considered for the locum consultant role, finding that the post was outside his area of expertise, that he would never have applied in any event, and that the reason he was not appointed was unrelated to any prior disclosures. It also rejected the challenge to the Acting Deputy Medical Director process, holding that the interview panel was properly constituted after Mr Cheatle was removed because of the claimant’s complaints against him, and that the claimant was not appointed because the other candidates performed significantly better and he lacked relevant senior management experience. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was not subjected to a detriment by the panel composition or the appointment outcome.

The main remaining whistleblowing allegation concerned the proposed agreement not to raise historic complaints. The tribunal found that the proposal arose from an investigation into a serious breakdown in the working relationship, that Mr Hay concluded the breakdown might be remediable, and that the Trust’s correspondence repeatedly explained the proposal as a mechanism to keep the parties working together pending the tribunal’s determination. It found the claimant was still being allowed to raise legitimate concerns held in good faith about unrelated matters, and that the Trust was not seeking to prevent him from pursuing his tribunal claims. On that basis, the tribunal held the proposal was not a detriment and, in any event, was not materially influenced by any protected disclosure.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant’s 17 July 2018 email, the 21 November 2018 tribunal claim, and the 10 June 2020 grievance were protected acts. It nevertheless rejected the alleged detriments, including the complaints about the investigation procedure, the scope and impartiality of the investigation, the comments about linked complaints and trust breakdown, and the alleged risk of dismissal. The tribunal found that the grievance and investigation process was broadly fair, that the claimant helped shape its scope, that an external investigator was used, and that the correspondence showed the respondent was trying to repair a damaged working relationship rather than retaliate for the claimant’s race discrimination complaints. It therefore dismissed all claims and made no monetary award.