Lead nurse dismissed for breaching patient confidentiality: procedural failings led to unfair dismissal finding
A lead nurse specialist was unfairly dismissed by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust after the trust failed to properly handle her grievance. The tribunal found she had committed gross misconduct but the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #patient-confidentiality
- #solicitors-letter
- #procedural-unfairness
- #grievance-ignored
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a lead nurse specialist from 4 April 2016 until 17 December 2020.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct following allegations including breach of patient confidentiality and sending a solicitor's letter to a witness.
- The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the respondent failed to properly deal with the claimant's grievance.
- The tribunal found that the claimant committed gross misconduct by breaching patient confidentiality and sending a solicitor's letter to a witness.
- The claimant's claim for wrongful dismissal was withdrawn and dismissed.
- The claimant was entitled to 11.7 days' holiday pay on termination.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as a lead nurse specialist.
-
LB's complaint
LB emailed a complaint alleging indirect bullying and harassment by the claimant.
-
Patient confidentiality breach
Claimant called A&E to inquire about FY's attendance, obtaining confidential information.
-
Fact-finding meeting
MN held a meeting with the claimant; claimant walked out.
-
MN recommends formal investigation
MN recommended a formal investigation into LB's allegations.
-
Investigation report submitted
SJ submitted her investigation report.
-
Offer of agreed sanction
ZJ offered claimant the option of an agreed sanction under pandemic policy.
-
First grievance
Claimant raised a grievance about the disciplinary process.
-
Claimant declines agreed sanction
Claimant's union representative confirmed she would not propose an agreed sanction.
-
Solicitor's letter to LB
Claimant's solicitor sent a letter before action to LB alleging defamation.
-
New terms of reference
New TORs issued regarding the solicitor's letter.
-
Addendum report
SJ submitted addendum report on new TORs.
-
Second solicitor's letter
Claimant's solicitor sent a second letter to LB.
-
Disciplinary hearing day 1
First day of disciplinary hearing.
-
Disciplinary hearing day 2
Second day of disciplinary hearing.
-
Second grievance
Claimant raised a second grievance about the disciplinary process.
-
Disciplinary hearing day 3
Third day of disciplinary hearing; grievance raised but not addressed.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, whether the respondent had a fair reason and followed a fair procedure, and whether the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the trust's procedure was flawed. The key reason was that the trust failed to address the claimant's grievance about the disciplinary process before dismissing her.
- The claimant was found to have committed gross misconduct (breach of patient confidentiality and sending a solicitor's letter to a witness).
- The dismissal was procedurally unfair due to the ignored grievance.
- The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim was withdrawn.
- The claimant was entitled to 11.7 days' holiday pay.
- A remedy hearing will determine compensation, taking into account contributory conduct.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must address grievances raised during a disciplinary process before making a final decision, or the dismissal may be found procedurally unfair.
- Even if an employee has committed gross misconduct, a flawed procedure can still lead to an unfair dismissal finding.
- Employees should be aware that sending a solicitor's letter to a witness can be considered gross misconduct, especially in a healthcare setting.
- Breaching patient confidentiality is a serious offence that can justify dismissal, but the process must still be fair.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in dismissals, even when the employee has clearly committed serious misconduct. The lead nurse specialist, with nearly five years' service, was dismissed for gross misconduct after she breached patient confidentiality by calling A&E to obtain information about a colleague, and later sent a solicitor's letter to a witness. The tribunal found that the trust had a fair reason to dismiss, but the process was flawed because the trust failed to properly deal with the claimant's grievance about the disciplinary process.
What the losing side could have done differently
The Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by addressing the claimant's grievance before making the final decision. The grievance was raised during the disciplinary process, but the trust did not consider it until after the dismissal. If the trust had paused the disciplinary process to investigate the grievance, or at least acknowledged and responded to it, the dismissal might have been fair.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that even in cases of gross misconduct, employers must follow a fair procedure. A failure to address a grievance can render an otherwise justified dismissal unfair. For employees, it shows that while serious misconduct can lead to dismissal, procedural errors can provide a basis for an unfair dismissal claim. The outcome also underscores that compensation may be reduced due to contributory conduct, as the claimant's own actions contributed to the dismissal.
Similar cases
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.
Manager dismissed for password breach wins unfair dismissal claim
A manager with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into password sharing and order deletion. The tribunal awarded £5,552 but reduced compensation because he contributed to his own dismissal.
Tanker driver dismissed for delayed incident report: procedural failure but fair outcome
A tanker driver was unfairly dismissed after failing to report dropping a hose on her foot, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway, awarding only £807.
22-year worker dismissed for unauthorised sales: procedural unfairness but no compensation
A security and maintenance worker with 22 years' service was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because he would have been dismissed anyway and contributed to his own dismissal.