Mr A Aarmodt, Counsel For the v Mr B Cooper, Queen’s Counsel — 2020

Dr U Prasad was employed as a consultant cardiologist from 3 May 2010 and worked in a cardiology department in which she was the only female consultant. The tribunal heard extensive evidence about disputes with Dr Bogle and Dr Perikala, including concerns raised about clinics, audits, anonymous letters and later management steps such as a proposed Invited Service Review.

On the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal held that allegations relating to 2013 were out of time and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. For the later period, it found the challenged actions were not because of sex: the timetabling issue arose from service needs, the TOE and stress-echo audits were routine clinical governance measures, and the proposed ISR was prompted by concerns about the claimant's practice rather than her sex.

On harassment, the tribunal found that some alleged comments were not proved. It accepted that Dr Perikala's second anonymous letter, copied to the patient and the Secretary of State, was intended to humiliate the claimant and had that effect, but held that the conduct was connected to concerns about her treatment of a patient and not to sex. The victimisation claim failed because the grievance of 30 September 2015 was not a protected act: it did not allege sex discrimination, expressly or by implication, and no causal link was shown in any event.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the email of 26 November 2015 and the oral disclosure to the CQC on 30 November 2015 were protected disclosures, but that the email of 30 November 2015 to colleagues was not. It nevertheless dismissed the detriment complaints because the denial of representation, the improvement notice, the non-disclosure of the investigation report, and the later ISR process were not shown to be taken on the ground of the protected disclosures. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.