Consultant gynaecologists dismissed for victimisation: unfair process but no compensation
Two long-serving consultant gynaecologists were unfairly dismissed by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because they would have been dismissed anyway and were wholly at fault.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimants were consultant gynaecologists employed by the NHS Trust since 2001 and 2002.
- They signed a collective grievance in January 2015 against a colleague, which was later found to be an act of victimisation.
- They refused to participate in an independent investigation by Henrietta Hill QC, leading to disciplinary proceedings.
- The claimants were dismissed in September 2017 for gross misconduct, including victimisation and failure to follow instructions.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to late disclosure of notes, but applied a 100% Polkey reduction and contributory fault.
Timeline
-
BME Network meeting
Ms Burns attended a BME Network meeting and later raised a grievance alleging homophobic remarks by Dr Lyfar-Cisse.
-
Collective grievance
The claimants and six others signed a collective grievance against Ms Burns, which the tribunal later found to be an act of victimisation.
-
Invitation to Hill QC investigation
The claimants were invited to participate in an investigation by Henrietta Hill QC, but they declined and refused to cooperate.
-
Hill QC report
Ms Hill QC's report found the collective grievance was an act of victimisation against Ms Burns.
-
MHPS investigation commenced
The Trust began a disciplinary investigation under the Maintaining High Professional Standards procedure.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Dr Findlay held a disciplinary hearing; Mr Kalu attended but left after an adjournment was refused; Mr Ogueh did not attend.
-
Dismissal
Both claimants were dismissed for gross misconduct, including victimisation and failure to comply with reasonable instructions.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal was heard by Mr Viggers; the claimants did not attend and the appeal was dismissed.
-
GMC referral
Dr Findlay referred the claimants to the GMC following the unsuccessful appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimants were unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct, and whether the dismissal was also an act of race discrimination, victimisation, or a response to protected disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal held that the dismissals were procedurally unfair because the trust failed to disclose relevant notes in time for the disciplinary hearing. However, it found that even with a fair process, the claimants would have been dismissed (100% Polkey reduction) and that their own conduct contributed entirely to the dismissal (100% contributory fault). As a result, no compensation was awarded.
- Basic award: £0
- Compensatory award: £0
- Polkey reduction: 100%
- Contributory fault reduction: 100%
Lessons & takeaways
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, you may receive nothing if the tribunal decides you would have been dismissed anyway (Polkey reduction).
- If your own conduct contributed significantly to your dismissal, any compensation can be reduced to zero.
- Refusing to cooperate with an employer's investigation can be seen as gross misconduct and may justify dismissal.
- Long service does not automatically protect you if you are found to have victimised a colleague.
What this case shows in practice
Two consultant gynaecologists, employed by the NHS Trust since 2001 and 2002, signed a collective grievance against a colleague in January 2015. An independent investigation by Henrietta Hill QC later found that grievance amounted to victimisation. When the trust launched disciplinary proceedings, the claimants refused to participate in the investigation and failed to attend the disciplinary hearing. They were dismissed for gross misconduct in September 2017.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the trust disclosed important notes to the claimants only on the day of the disciplinary hearing, denying them a fair chance to prepare. However, the tribunal also concluded that even with a fair process, the claimants would have been dismissed. Their refusal to cooperate and the serious nature of the victimisation meant dismissal was inevitable.
What the losing side could have done differently
The trust could have avoided the finding of unfairness by ensuring timely disclosure of all relevant documents. For the claimants, cooperating with the investigation and attending the hearing might have led to a different outcome or at least reduced the finding of contributory fault.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a stark reminder that procedural unfairness does not guarantee compensation. Tribunals will assess what would have happened in a fair process (Polkey reduction) and whether the employee's own conduct contributed to the dismissal. Here, both reductions were applied at 100%, leaving the claimants with nothing. It also highlights that victimisation of a colleague is treated very seriously by employers and tribunals, even for long-serving professionals.
Similar cases
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Security guard dismissed for sleeping on duty: tribunal rejects discrimination claims
A security guard who was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP has lost his claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the discrimination claims had no merit.
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.