GP dismissed in probation: whistleblowing claim fails as tribunal finds no protected disclosure
A GP dismissed during her six-month probation for performance issues lost her whistleblowing claim after a majority tribunal found she had not made any protected disclosures. No compensation awarded.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #probation-dismissal
- #performance-management
- #covid-concerns
- #minority-dissent
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Lead Medical Practitioner from 15 February 2021 until dismissal on 19 August 2021.
- The claimant alleged she made protected disclosures to Dr Powles on 14 July 2021 and to Dr Rogers on 30 July 2021.
- The majority found the claimant did not make any protected disclosures; the call to Dr Powles was a career coaching conversation.
- The claimant's performance issues predated any alleged disclosures, with HR concerns raised as early as May 2021.
- The claimant was dismissed during her probation for performance reasons, including timekeeping and inability to perform the Lead Physician role.
- The minority (Dr Weerasinghe) found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure to Dr Powles.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as Lead Medical Practitioner at BUPA's West End centre.
-
Compassionate leave
Claimant took two weeks' compassionate leave following her father's death.
-
First clinical note audit
Dr Rogers audited the claimant's health assessment notes; no overall rating recorded.
-
HR concerns raised
Dr Rogers contacted HR expressing concerns about the claimant's performance and ability to pass probation.
-
Three-month probation review
Claimant told to focus on clinical aspects until signed off; concerns about timekeeping and dashboard statistics noted.
-
First alleged disclosure
Claimant telephoned Dr Powles; majority found it was a career coaching call, not a protected disclosure.
-
Unscheduled five-month review
Claimant told to lead the team and not push against what the Respondent was delivering.
-
Second alleged disclosure
Claimant spoke to Dr Rogers about Covid protocols; majority found she asked questions, did not disclose information.
-
Dismissal
Claimant told she had failed probation and was dismissed; reasons included timekeeping and inability to do the LP role.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant sent a grievance letter complaining about her treatment and performance assessment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the GP made protected disclosures to her managers and, if so, whether she was dismissed or subjected to detriments because of those disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the GP's claims by a majority (2-1). The majority found that:
- The call to Dr Powles on 14 July 2021 was a career coaching conversation, not a protected disclosure.
- The conversation with Dr Rogers on 30 July 2021 about Covid protocols involved the GP asking questions, not disclosing information.
- The GP's performance issues — including timekeeping and inability to perform the Lead Physician role — predated any alleged disclosures and were the genuine reason for her dismissal.
The minority judge disagreed, finding that the GP had made a protected disclosure to Dr Powles and was automatically unfairly dismissed. No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- To succeed in a whistleblowing claim, you must show you made a 'protected disclosure' — raising a concern about wrongdoing in the public interest, not just asking questions or seeking career advice.
- Employers can dismiss during probation for genuine performance reasons, provided those reasons are properly documented and not a pretext for retaliation.
- A minority dissent does not change the outcome, but it can indicate that the case had some merit and may be worth appealing if the legal test was arguably misapplied.
- Keep clear records of any concerns you raise in writing, and ensure they explicitly reference a legal wrongdoing (e.g., breach of health and safety regulations) to strengthen a potential whistleblowing claim.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the high bar for whistleblowing claims, particularly when an employee is still in their probation period. The GP, who had only six months' service, alleged that she was dismissed for raising concerns about Covid protocols and other issues. However, the majority tribunal found that her conversations were not 'protected disclosures' in the legal sense — they were either career coaching chats or routine questions, not disclosures of information that tended to show a legal wrongdoing.
The timing was also against her. Performance concerns had been raised by her manager as early as May 2021, well before the alleged disclosures in July. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for genuine performance reasons, including timekeeping and an inability to perform the Lead Physician role, rather than a response to any whistleblowing.
What the losing side could have done differently
The GP might have strengthened her case by putting her concerns in writing and explicitly stating that she was raising a matter of public interest under whistleblowing law. Instead, the conversations were informal and ambiguous. She also could have challenged the performance criticisms earlier, rather than waiting until after dismissal.
For employers, this case is a reminder that proper documentation of performance issues from the start of employment can be crucial in defending a whistleblowing claim. BUPA had a clear paper trail of concerns dating back to May, which helped persuade the majority that the dismissal was not retaliatory.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that not every complaint about workplace practices amounts to a protected disclosure. Employees must show they disclosed information that, in their reasonable belief, tended to show a breach of a legal obligation or danger to health and safety — and that this disclosure was a material reason for their dismissal. The minority dissent shows that these cases can be finely balanced, but the majority view here confirms that employers can dismiss for performance during probation without fear of whistleblowing claims if the concerns raised are not genuine disclosures.
Similar cases
Research assistant's redundancy claim fails: funding cessation was genuine reason
A research assistant with 12 years' service lost her claim for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination after the tribunal found her redundancy was genuinely due to loss of funding.
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.
Wasted costs application against NHS Trust solicitors dismissed after settlement agreement
A junior doctor's attempt to obtain a wasted costs order against the solicitors for an NHS Trust was dismissed because a 2018 settlement agreement precluded the application and there was no improper conduct.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.