Case 3201018/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Stillman v Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 3201018/2020
- Decision date
- 14 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Stillman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Stillman brought a single claim of unfair dismissal arising from her dismissal by Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust. The respondent accepted that she had been dismissed and relied on misconduct as the potentially fair reason. The tribunal identified the relevant issues under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell approach to whether the respondent held a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was fair under section 98(4).
The tribunal found that concerns raised by student midwives in March 2019 led to a disciplinary investigation into alleged derogatory and discriminatory comments, disrespectful remarks about patients, and related conduct issues. It accepted that the respondent interviewed 19 witnesses, considered documentary material, and gave the claimant advance notice of the allegations, the notes of the investigation interviews, and the disciplinary bundle. The tribunal also accepted that the respondent had legitimate reasons for anonymising student and newly qualified midwife witnesses and that the claimant was represented throughout.
On the evidence before it, the tribunal found that the claimant had been guilty of misconduct in relation to allegations 1 and 7 and also allegation 2, and that the respondent was entitled to distinguish her conduct from that of colleagues who attended a reflective meeting. It further found that the claimant had been given a fair opportunity to respond, to provide evidence and testimonials, and to challenge the evidence through her representative at the disciplinary hearing and appeal. The respondent’s reasons for dismissal, including its view that the findings amounted to gross misconduct and that lesser sanctions were not appropriate, were held to be within the range of reasonable responses.
The claim for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made. The tribunal did not record any discrimination, whistleblowing, redundancy, contractual, or wage claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent accepted dismissal and relied on misconduct as the potentially fair reason. The tribunal found the investigation and dismissal decision were within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- BHS v Burchell
- s.98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- A v B
- Sainsbury Supermarket Plc v Hitt
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.