Case 2600746/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Ms C Shaw v Nottinghamshire County Council — 2019

Case reference: 2600746/2018
Decision date: 3 October 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Blackwell Members
Venue: Nottingham
Panel members: Mr K P Chester, Mr A Kabal

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms C Shaw

Respondent

Nottinghamshire County Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Shaw was employed by Nottinghamshire County Council as a Social Worker from 1 September 2011 until her summary dismissal on 13 November 2017. The dismissal followed an audit showing that she had accessed Mrs Holmes's confidential Mosaic records on 9, 18 and 21 March 2017. Mrs Holmes was a former colleague and not a service user allocated to Ms Shaw. Ms Shaw accepted that she had accessed the records, but relied on concerns about Mrs Holmes's care and discharge arrangements.

The Tribunal rejected the pleaded protected disclosures said to have been made on or about 9 March 2017, 19 March 2017 and 2 May 2017. It preferred Mrs Reed's evidence to Ms Shaw's account, found that nothing said to Mrs Reed in March 2017 constituted a protected disclosure, and found that the 2 May bedside meeting did not amount to a safeguarding issue or protected disclosure. The s.47B detriment claim and the s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim therefore failed.

For the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely Ms Shaw's unauthorised access to the Mosaic system. It rejected the argument that dismissal was caused by a conspiracy or by protected disclosure issues. Applying Burchell and the range of reasonable responses test, it found that the disciplinary panel had a genuine belief in the misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation was reasonable in all the circumstances despite identified flaws, including the investigator's conclusion that allegations were proven and limited evidence about consistency of treatment.

The Tribunal recognised mitigating factors, including Ms Shaw's professional record, testimonials, personal challenges, and her stated concern for Mrs Holmes. It found, however, that the panel was not satisfied it could trust Ms Shaw not to repeat similar conduct, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the Tribunal found that the unauthorised access to Mrs Holmes's records was a repudiatory breach of contract and that the Council ended the contract because of that conduct. No remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Claim of detriments contrary to s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal found that the alleged protected disclosures did not occur as described and that no protected disclosures were made.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Claim of automatically unfair dismissal contrary to s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. It failed because the Tribunal found that Ms Shaw had not made protected disclosures.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Ordinary unfair dismissal claim under ss.94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal found conduct was the reason for dismissal and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The Tribunal found Ms Shaw's unauthorised access to Mrs Holmes's Mosaic records constituted a repudiatory breach of contract.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

10 references

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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.