Case 3319192/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Rose Southam v Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3319192/2019
- Decision date
- 2 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Tribunal
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr A Kapur, Mrs B Osborne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Rose Southam
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Rose Southam worked for Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust from 24 August 2015 and later held the role of Lead Referral Coordinator in the Integrated Care Team. She brought claims of unfair constructive dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996, automatic unfair constructive dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996, and detriment on the ground of protected disclosure under s.47B ERA 1996. The tribunal directed itself on constructive dismissal, the implied term of trust and confidence, repudiatory breach, and the statutory test for protected disclosures.
The tribunal accepted only PD1 and PD2 as protected disclosures. PD1 concerned staff taking patient paperwork and medical summaries home and the confidentiality/data protection risk that created. PD2 concerned an unsafe referral-processing system and capacity issues that put patients at risk. Most of the other alleged disclosures, PD3 to PD17, were rejected because the evidence did not show what was said, when it was said, to whom it was said, or that the information met the statutory test for a qualifying disclosure.
On detriment, the tribunal found that the matters relied on by the claimant, including appraisals, supervision, bank shifts, promotion decisions, mobile phone use, locker access, and the events of 5 to 8 February 2019, were either not proved, had an innocent explanation, or were not caused by any protected disclosure. On dismissal, it found no repudiatory breach of contract and no basis for constructive dismissal. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant resigned on 11 March 2019 giving one month’s notice and said in her resignation response that she was leaving so that she could progress career wise; her employment ended on 11 April 2019. All claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Unfair constructive dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996; the tribunal found no repudiatory breach or breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and noted that the claimant's resignation email said she was leaving to progress career wise. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Automatic unfair constructive dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996; the tribunal accepted PD1 and PD2 as protected disclosures but found no constructive dismissal and no causal link between those disclosures and the claimant's resignation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment on the ground of protected disclosure under s.47B ERA 1996; the tribunal accepted PD1 and PD2 as protected disclosures but held that the alleged detriments were not proved or were not caused by those disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95 ERA 1996
- repudiatory breach
- implied term of trust and confidence
- objective test
- last straw
- s.98(1)-(4) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.43A-43H ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
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.