Case 3304041/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Menzies, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3304041/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Menzies, Solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an interim relief application by Mr Ron Leon, a Clinical Nutritionist employed by Breakspear Medical Group Limited from 1 February 2007 until his dismissal on 22 March 2022. The tribunal set out the statutory test under sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 and noted the authorities it had been referred to, including Taplin v C Shippam Limited, Dandpat v University of Bath, London City Airport Limited v Chacko, Al Qasimi v Robinson, and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz. It stressed that this was a summary assessment and that it was not making final findings of fact.
The tribunal found that Mr Leon had a pretty good chance of showing that disclosures he said he made to Mr Alistair Monroe in March or April 2021 and again on 7 October 2021 were protected disclosures. Those disclosures concerned, among other things, unnecessary testing, repeated blood tests, storage of blood samples, shredding of clinical notes, and concerns about allergy treatments and a vaccine technician. It also found that he was likely to succeed in showing that his disclosures to the General Medical Council were protected under section 43F ERA 1996 and that the matters were likely to be of public interest.
On the dismissal question, the tribunal considered that there was a strong coincidence of timing between the disclosures, the suspension, the investigation and the dismissal. It also noted that Mr Alistair Monroe, who investigated and dismissed Mr Leon, was the son of Dr Jean Monroe, the main subject of the GMC complaint. The tribunal considered that the reasons relied on in the dismissal letter were all linked to the disclosures, that some were likely to be viewed as overstatements, and that the allegations concerning contact with patient NLE were harder to see as gross misconduct in the circumstances. It concluded that Mr Leon had a pretty good chance of persuading a tribunal that the real reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures, and it granted interim relief. The order kept the contract of employment in force from 22 March 2022 and required payment of £2,597 per month until determination or settlement of the complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief granted under sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 on the basis that the claimant was likely to succeed in showing automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosures under section 103A ERA 1996. The order requires the contract of employment to continue in force from 22 March 2022 until determination or settlement, with payment of £2,597 per month subject to tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £2,597 |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.128 ERA 1996
- s.129 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43F ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Limited
- Dandpat v University of Bath
- London City Airport Limited v Chacko
- Al Qasimi v Robinson
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
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.