Case 6003240/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Dr P Boreham v North Bristol NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003240/2025
- Decision date
- 20 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Venue
- by CVP from the Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr P Boreham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for a reason related to conduct. The dismissal followed allegations about the claimant's interactions with Dr A in March 2023 and diabetes specialist nurses in July 2023, considered under the respondent's MHPS process.
The tribunal accepted that one allegation concerning lack of insight about the interaction with Dr A was not well founded, but concluded that this did not make the dismissal unfair. It found that the respondent had carried out a reasonable investigation, had reasonable grounds for its belief in misconduct, and was not required on the facts known at the time to explore neurodiversity as a mitigating factor.
Taking account of the seriousness of the conduct found by the respondent, the impact on colleagues, the claimant's previous disciplinary history, and the respondent's conclusions about future behaviour, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and dismissed. A late application to amend to add wrongful dismissal had been refused and was not adjudicated. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
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.