Dr A Iqbal v Represented by: Mr A Hardman - Advocate Greater Glasgow Health Board — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Dr A Iqbal's claim of unfair constructive dismissal against Greater Glasgow Health Board. The consultant interventional neuroradiologist resigned with immediate effect on 4 December 2024. He alleged that the Board's handling of concerns about his practice, restrictions on his duties, suspension and investigations had breached the implied term of trust and confidence.

After concerns arose during a preliminary enquiry into Dr Iqbal's bullying complaints, Dr David Dodds supplied summaries and proposed discussing the full details through a supported improvement plan. The tribunal accepted the Board's reliance on its Information Sharing Protocol when withholding colleagues' enquiry records. It treated the dispute over particulars as one of timing, finding that the Board intended to provide details and an opportunity to respond. The support plan could not proceed while the colleagues expected to support it were under formal investigation. Neither internal process upheld the bullying complaints.

The tribunal found reasonable and proper cause for restricting elective duties in August 2022 while allowing acute and on-call work to continue. It accepted that patient safety concerns and advice from the claimant's trainers supported the restriction, which affected about 20% of his work. An internal grievance was partially upheld, including a finding that a preliminary enquiry should have been considered first. The tribunal nevertheless found no mandatory requirement for that step and accepted that the proposed improvement plan was intended to support Dr Iqbal and keep him working within the department.

Suspension from 23 May 2023 followed two Datix incident reports and further patient safety concerns. The tribunal found that the Board had properly considered alternative duties and further restrictions. It accepted the reasons for rejecting those options, including relationships within potential receiving departments and concerns arising despite existing restrictions. It also found reasonable and proper cause to continue suspension pending the investigation, since the relevant circumstances had not changed. Professor Alistair Leonard later proposed temporary diagnostic work, but no meeting to agree an interim job plan took place before resignation.

The tribunal found Dr Fiona Roberts' investigation thorough and reasonable. It accepted the period from September 2023 to June 2024 in light of the investigation's complexity, the initial wait for HR support, requested postponements, annual leave, surgery and extensions for agreeing meeting notes. Questions about appraisals, logbooks and abandoned procedures arose from evidence relevant to the investigation. Their inclusion did not make it too wide-ranging.

The tribunal also considered challenges to Dr Roberts' conclusions about the claimant's probity. A letter produced at the hearing from his appraiser confirmed that the Datix incidents had been discussed, although they were not recorded in the appraisal. Dr Roberts had not seen that letter during her investigation. The tribunal concluded that she was entitled to reach her conclusions on the information available to her at the time and rejected the allegation that the investigation was one-sided.