Consultant psychiatrist forced out after patient suicide: £95,112 for constructive dismissal
A consultant forensic psychiatrist with 15 years' service was constructively unfairly dismissed after being given an ultimatum to resign, retire or face a conduct hearing following a patient suicide. The tribunal awarded £95,112.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #patient-suicide
- #serious-untoward-incident
- #missing-medical-records
- #mhps-investigation
- #scapegoating
- #victimisation
- #gender-clinic-role
Key facts
- The claimant was a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at Rampton Hospital from 2003 until her retirement on 1 February 2019.
- A patient in her care, CW, committed suicide on 5 February 2016, leading to a Serious Untoward Incident Inquiry and a Maintaining High Professional Standards investigation.
- The SUI report was critical of the claimant, but the Coroner later found her care of CW satisfactory after missing documents were discovered.
- The respondent's managers, particularly Mr Wright, Dr Packham, and Dr Hankin, conducted themselves in a manner that breached the implied term of trust and confidence.
- The claimant was given an ultimatum on 5 April 2018 to resign, retire, or face a conduct hearing, which she considered a fundamental breach.
- The claimant's application for a role in the Forensic Gender Clinic was ignored and ultimately refused, which the tribunal found was due to her having brought a previous claim.
Timeline
-
Claimant appointed
Ms McInerney appointed as Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist in the high secure women's service at Rampton Hospital.
-
Patient suicide
Patient CW, aged 25, committed suicide while under the claimant's care.
-
MHPS investigation initiated
Dr Packham wrote to the claimant advising of a Maintaining High Professional Standards investigation into her care of CW.
-
SUI report completed
Dr Silva's Serious Untoward Incident Inquiry report was critical of the claimant's care, including a diagnosis of schizophrenia which the claimant disputed.
-
Mr Wright's statement to Coroner
Mr Wright provided a statement to the Coroner endorsing the SUI report's findings, despite the claimant's factual corrections.
-
SUI report circulated
Mr Wright circulated the SUI report and his Inquest statement within the Trust without including the claimant's corrections.
-
Ultimatum meeting
Dr Packham told the claimant she had three choices: resign, retire, or face a conduct hearing overseen by Mr Wright.
-
Conduct hearing circulated
Mr Wright circulated a document to the claimant's colleagues stating she would be subject to a conduct hearing.
-
Claimant gave notice of retirement
The claimant served six months' notice of retirement, effective 1 February 2019.
-
First claim submitted
The claimant submitted her first employment tribunal claim for constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination.
-
Victimisation claim submitted
The claimant submitted a further claim for victimisation after her application for a Forensic Gender Clinic role was ignored.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the Trust's conduct, including the flawed investigation and the ultimatum, amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence, and whether the claimant was victimised for bringing a previous claim.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed. The Trust's managers, particularly Mr Wright, Dr Packham, and Dr Hankin, conducted themselves in a manner that destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence. The claimant was given an ultimatum on 5 April 2018 to resign, retire, or face a conduct hearing, which she considered a fundamental breach. The tribunal also found that the claimant's application for a role in the Forensic Gender Clinic was ignored because she had brought a previous claim, amounting to victimisation.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £11,430
- Compensatory award: £83,682
- Total: £95,112
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure that investigations into serious incidents are fair and take into account the employee's corrections and concerns.
- Giving an employee an ultimatum to resign, retire, or face a disciplinary hearing can be a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.
- Ignoring an employee's job application because they have brought a previous claim can amount to victimisation.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a higher standard of fair treatment, and failing to provide it can lead to substantial compensation.
- Missing documents that later exonerate an employee should be disclosed promptly; failure to do so can undermine the entire investigation.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the devastating impact that a flawed investigation can have on a long-serving employee. The claimant, a consultant forensic psychiatrist at Rampton Hospital, had an unblemished 15-year record until a patient under her care committed suicide. The subsequent Serious Untoward Incident (SUI) report was critical of her, but the Coroner later found her care satisfactory after missing documents were discovered. Despite this, the Trust continued with its internal investigation and eventually gave her an ultimatum: resign, retire, or face a conduct hearing overseen by the same manager who had already endorsed the flawed SUI report.
What the Trust could have done differently
The Trust could have avoided this outcome by taking the claimant's factual corrections seriously and ensuring the investigation was impartial. Instead, key documents were withheld from the Coroner, and the claimant's concerns were ignored. The ultimatum was a clear breach of trust, and the tribunal found that the Trust's conduct was calculated to destroy the relationship. The Trust also victimised the claimant by ignoring her application for a gender clinic role because she had brought a previous claim.
Why this result matters
This case is a stark reminder that employers must conduct fair investigations, especially when dealing with serious incidents. The £95,112 award reflects the seriousness of the breach and the impact on the claimant's career. For employees in similar situations, it shows that constructive dismissal claims can succeed when an employer's conduct fundamentally undermines trust and confidence. It also underscores the importance of documenting all interactions and seeking legal advice before resigning.
Similar cases
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.
Long-serving teacher unfairly dismissed after raising race discrimination grievance
A primary school teacher with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed for 'irretrievable breakdown' after she raised a grievance alleging race discrimination. The tribunal also found she was victimised.
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.
Labourer's race discrimination claim survives strike-out bid despite late witness statement
A construction labourer who alleges he was subjected to monkey chants and racist abuse can proceed with his claim after the tribunal refused to strike it out, despite his late compliance with orders.