Dr Gail Richardson v University Hospitals Leicester NHS Trust Heard: in Leicester, with Professor Bu’Lock joining via Cloud Video Platform — 2021

Dr Gail Richardson, a consultant interventional cardiologist, was dismissed by University Hospitals Leicester NHS Trust on 14 August 2020 after the Trust concluded that working relationships within the cardiology department had irretrievably broken down. The tribunal noted a long background of complaints, prior investigations, disciplinary action, and support measures. It also recorded that, after senior colleagues raised concerns about her return to work and HEE maintained restrictions on her working with trainees, the Trust commissioned a trust and confidence investigation rather than restarting an MHPS process.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was not conduct or capability but a genuine and substantial loss of mutual trust and confidence between the claimant and key colleagues in the cardiology team. It accepted that the Trust had taken legal advice, had not used SOSR as a pretext, and was entitled to treat the breakdown in relationships as a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(1) ERA 1996. It also held that MHPS did not have to be followed because the issue being investigated was the viability of working relationships, not a fresh conduct, capability or ill-health case.

On fairness under section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the process was reasonable overall. It found that the claimant had repeatedly been invited to take part in the investigation and hearing, but chose not to do so on advice from her trade union; that the investigation report was detailed and based on interviews with colleagues; and that the appeal process, although delayed, was eventually heard over two days before a revised panel. The tribunal rejected criticisms about the use of the trust and confidence process, the composition of the panels, delay, and the 250-word limit on post-hearing answers, and concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

The appeal panel, by majority, did not uphold the claimant’s appeal. The tribunal said it would not have needed to decide Polkey or contributory conduct because the claim failed, but indicated that dismissal would in any event have occurred and that the claimant had substantially contributed to the dismissal through her behaviour and refusal to take responsibility for the breakdown in relationships.