Mr M P Poullis v Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2022

The claimant was a cardiothoracic surgeon dismissed on 10 October 2019 after disciplinary proceedings about three matters: completing site verification forms before patients had been admitted and before he had marked them, cancelling surgery inappropriately, and failing to document care adequately on EPR. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s case that the reason for dismissal was conduct within section 98(2) ERA 1996, and rejected the suggestion that the process had been predetermined or driven by RDP or by any bias in the investigation or appeal.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that Dr Morris genuinely believed the claimant had committed the alleged misconduct and that belief was based on reasonable grounds. It relied in particular on the claimant’s admissions, the 98 admitted instances of pre-admission site verification forms, and the patient examples used at hearing, including Patient D, where the claimant cancelled surgery and then put the patient back on the list when he had no intention of operating that day. The tribunal held that the respondent carried out such investigation as was reasonable in all the circumstances, and that the move from the original terms of reference to the revised terms was a refinement rather than an unfair change.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant’s procedural objections, including complaint about delay, the decision to treat the matter as conduct rather than capability, the absence of an external thoracic surgeon on the panel, and the handling of his requests for further data. It found that the disciplinary and appeal panels properly considered the claimant’s mitigation, including his arguments that other doctors had completed similar forms and his request for a final written warning, but were entitled to conclude that his admissions and the impact of his conduct on patients and colleagues made dismissal a reasonable response. The appeal was therefore upheld. On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that the same conduct amounted to repudiatory breach of contract and gross misconduct, so summary dismissal without notice was lawful. No compensation was awarded because both claims failed.