Mr D.M.S. Bakht v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2024

The Claimant was employed as a medical support worker on a fixed-term contract in the Respondent's renal department. The Tribunal found that concerns about his capability, communication, insight, attendance at handovers and ability to work within the MSW role arose before the protected disclosures and increased during the employment.

Of the alleged disclosures, the Tribunal held that PD1 was not a qualifying disclosure, the medication element of PD2 was not a qualifying disclosure, but the albumin element of PD2 and PD3 about a discharge diagnosis and management were protected disclosures. It found that most alleged detriments were either not proved, not detriments, not connected to the protected disclosures, or outside jurisdiction/time limits.

The Tribunal upheld only the detriment claim concerning the refusal to allow the Claimant to return to work from sickness absence in December 2021. It found that the Claimant's criticisms of senior clinicians included the protected disclosures and materially influenced that decision, although capability was the main reason for the Respondent's approach.

The automatically unfair dismissal claim failed. The Tribunal found that the protected disclosures played a small but material part in the decision not to renew the fixed-term contract, but the principal reason was capability, including concerns that the Claimant was unreliable, lacked competence and judgment, had limited insight, and increased rather than reduced work for others. Remedy for the upheld detriment claim was not determined in this judgment; a remedy hearing would be listed if compensation was not agreed.