Mr Matthew Purchase, of Counsel For the v Mr Simon Cheetham, of Her Majesty’s Counsel — 2020

At the interim relief hearing on 26 June 2020, Employment Judge Hyams considered the claimant's application under section 128 ERA 1996. The claimant, a consultant obstetrician dismissed by letter dated 27 May 2020, said she had been dismissed because, or principally because, she had made protected disclosures, including a disclosure to Dr Andy Barlow about Miss Coker in 2017 and an allegation of racism against Dr van der Watt in 2016. The respondent accepted for present purposes that protected disclosures had been made, but disputed that they were the reason for dismissal.

The judge applied the Taplin v C Shippam 'pretty good chance' test under section 129 ERA 1996 and considered Royal Mail Limited v Jhuti. He focused on the dismissal letter and disciplinary findings concerning Case 13, relating to patient LP and baby JP. The panel concluded that the claimant's clinical decision-making in that case was suboptimal, that she failed to take sufficient steps to care for the patient and baby, and that her account of events was untruthful and misleading.

The judge rejected the submission that the respondent's handling of the LP matter meant the coroner or dismissal panel had little choice but to accept the respondent's case. He found that the coroner and panel considered the evidence for themselves, including contemporaneous text messages said to support LP's account, and he was not satisfied that the claimant had a pretty good chance of proving that whistleblowing was the sole or principal reason for dismissal. Interim relief was therefore refused. The judgment did not finally determine the underlying whistleblowing or unfair dismissal claims.