Case 3203798/2022 · Employment Tribunal
YY v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3203798/2022
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
YY
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed after the respondent upheld disciplinary allegations arising from his conduct towards a staff nurse, XX, after their personal relationship ended. The tribunal found that the respondent's decision-makers had a genuine belief in misconduct, based on reasonable grounds. The evidence included workplace incidents on 28 January and 3 February 2021 and unwanted personal contact and messages sent after XX had asked the claimant not to contact her except about patient matters.
The tribunal found that the WhatsApp evidence reasonably showed repeated unwanted contact, including offensive, sexually graphic and disturbing messages, and that the disciplinary panel was entitled to prefer XX's account. It accepted that the respondent could conclude the claimant's conduct was unprofessional, highly inappropriate, in breach of the Trust's values, and amounted to serious and persistent sex harassment of XX, with a negative impact on her health and disruption to the surgical team.
The tribunal considered the claimant's procedural complaints, including the investigation scope, witness issues, hybrid hearing format, police investigation, disclosure of the bundle, alleged HR involvement, inclusion of prejudicial material, and delay. It did not uphold any specific allegation of unfairness as material. It concluded that both the disciplinary procedure and the decision to summarily dismiss were within the range of reasonable responses, so the claimant was fairly dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim of ordinary unfair dismissal following summary dismissal on 7 March 2022. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and dismissed the claim. In the alternative, it stated that if the dismissal had been unfair it would have found 100% contributory fault and no damages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Section 98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379
- HSBC v Madden [2000] ICR 1283
- Sainsbury v Hitt 2002 EWCA Civ 1588
- ACAS Code of Practice No.1, Disciplinary & Grievance Procedures (2009)
- Section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992
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.