Case 2302217/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Murphy v Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302217/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr P Adkins, Mrs H Carter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, a long-serving Band 8B Senior Matron employed by the Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust from 19 January 1981 until her summary dismissal on 16 February 2023, brought complaints of detriment and automatic unfair dismissal on the ground of protected disclosures under sections 47B and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, ordinary unfair dismissal under section 94, and wrongful dismissal. This was a liability-only hearing before Employment Judge Ramsden sitting with Mr P Adkins and Mrs H Carter at London South between 13 and 22 May 2025.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not subjected to any detriment on the ground of having made protected disclosures, and that she was not automatically unfairly dismissed under s.103A. However, the Tribunal upheld the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under s.94, identifying shortcomings in the Respondent's investigation and disciplinary process and a failure to engage with the Claimant's explanations.
On wrongful dismissal, the Tribunal found that the Claimant did not commit a fundamental breach of her contract of employment. At most she failed to follow an indirect oral instruction from Mr Briggs during a busy period, which the Tribunal accepted was inadvertent, and which fell well short of conduct entitling the Respondent to terminate without notice. The wrongful dismissal complaint accordingly succeeded. Remedy, including any contributory conduct, Polkey or ACAS Code adjustments, was not determined at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Detriment complaints under s.47B ERA 1996 on the ground of protected disclosures were not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 (dismissal for making protected disclosures) was not made out. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under s.94 ERA 1996 succeeded. Liability-only hearing; remedy to be determined separately. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract by the Claimant; summary dismissal without notice was wrongful. Remedy not addressed at this liability-only hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 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.
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.