Mrs D Hooper v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust — 2020

Mrs D Hooper brought a whistleblowing detriment complaint under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging that her agency placement at Laurel House ended because she had made protected disclosures about data protection and patient information handling. The tribunal first held that the claim was in time: the act complained of was the termination on 21 July 2017, not the earlier communication of the decision on 14 July 2017, applying London Borough of Harrow v Knight and Unilever UK Plc v Hickinson.

On the disclosures themselves, the tribunal found that the claimant's 8-12 June 2017 communications about patient information being handled without proper Information Governance involvement were disclosures of information. It found that she reasonably believed the matters were in the public interest and that they tended to show a breach of data protection obligations, referring to Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed when analysing public interest. It also treated her earlier ICO complaints about her reference and data protection concerns as supporting context for that belief. The tribunal found the 29 June 2017 exchange was a non-event, and that the 7 July 2017 communication was essentially a repetition of the earlier patient-data concern rather than a separate new disclosure.

The claim failed because the tribunal found the respondent did not terminate the claimant's engagement on the ground that she had made protected disclosures. It accepted Ms Hartley's evidence that the reason was the rapid introduction of CAPA in response to a service crisis, which changed the duty nurse role so that care coordination and driving became necessary. The tribunal found Ms Hartley did not know about the claimant's disclosures when she decided to end the engagement, and it rejected the suggestion that later remarks relayed to the claimant on 17 July 2017 showed a whistleblowing reason. The complaint was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.