Case 2409100/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Fahmy Fahmy v Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust — 2024

Case reference: 2409100/2021
Decision date: 5 February 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Liz Ord
Venue: Liverpool
Panel members: Michelle Plimley, Rob Alldritt

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Fahmy Fahmy

Respondent

Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that there had been conduct extending over a period and that the last act was within three months of proceedings, so all claims were in time. It found that the claimant made three protected disclosures on 15 May 2020, 20 May 2020 and 21 May 2020. On the whistleblowing claim, it upheld detriments comprising a failure in May 2020 to implement changes to his work in a timely manner, an unfair allocation of work without further remuneration, communication of his duties to colleagues in an undermining manner, and recording concerns on his appraisal form for the first time in 20 years. It rejected the allegations of exclusion from ACA work, untimely grievance handling, and failure to action a phased return between June and September 2021.

On disability discrimination arising from the claimant’s inability to have face-to-face patient contact, the tribunal found unfavourable treatment in the unfair allocation of work without further remuneration, communication of duties to colleagues in an undermining manner, exclusion from ACA work, recording concerns on the appraisal form, and the failure between June and September 2021 to action a phased return to work in a timely manner. It rejected the allegations that the May 2020 implementation changes issue and grievance processing were because of that inability. It also found a failure to make reasonable adjustments, identifying PCPs of a broad-brush approach to risk assessments, inadequate training for those undertaking them, failure to prioritise disabled staff more at risk of COVID-19 complications, and only offering ACAs to those able to do face-to-face consultations.

The tribunal found that the claimant’s formal grievance on 11 December 2020 was a protected act and upheld victimisation detriments in the recording of appraisal concerns, delay in processing the grievance, and the failure between June and September 2021 to action a phased return to work in a timely manner. It rejected the allegations of unfair allocation of work and exclusion from ACA work as victimisation. The supplied reasons do not record a monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The tribunal found that the claimant made three protected disclosures on 15 May 2020, 20 May 2020 and 21 May 2020. It upheld detriments in the form of a failure in May 2020 to implement changes to his work in a timely manner, an unfair allocation of work without further remuneration, communication of his duties to colleagues in an undermining manner, and recording concerns on the claimant’s appraisal form for the first time in 20 years; it rejected the exclusion from ACA work, the grievance-timing allegation, and the phased return allegation.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	This was the claim of discrimination arising from disability, based on the claimant’s inability to have face-to-face patient contact. The tribunal found unfavourable treatment by way of unfair allocation of work without further remuneration, communication of his duties to colleagues in an undermining manner, exclusion from ACA work, recording concerns on his appraisal form for the first time in 20 years, and failure between June and September 2021 to put in place/action a phased return to work in a timely manner; it rejected the allegations about the May 2020 implementation changes and grievance processing.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	This was the reasonable adjustments claim. The tribunal found PCPs of taking a broad-brush approach to risk assessments, failing to adequately train staff undertaking risk assessments, failing to prioritise disabled staff who were more at risk of COVID-19 complications, and only offering ACAs to individuals who were able to do face-to-face consultations. It found that the claimant was put at substantial disadvantage and identified adjustments that should have been implemented.	Upheld	Disability	—
Victimisation

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.