Consultant paediatric neurologist loses unfair dismissal claim and faces £83,000 costs order
A consultant paediatric neurologist who made multiple whistleblowing allegations was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. His repeated attempts to reopen the case using a Serious Untoward Incident Report failed, and he was ordered to pay over £83,000 in costs.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed from his position as a Consultant Paediatric Neurologist for gross misconduct.
- The claimant made a large number of public interest disclosure allegations, all of which were dismissed by the tribunal.
- The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, detriment for whistleblowing, and breach of contract were dismissed after a 13-day hearing.
- The claimant applied for reconsideration based on a Serious Untoward Incident Report that he claimed was new evidence.
- The tribunal found that the SUI report had no relevance to the claimant's case and would not have influenced the original decision.
- The claimant's applications for reconsideration were repeatedly refused as out of time and lacking reasonable prospects.
Timeline
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant failed to attend a meeting to discuss his exclusion and was suspended shortly after.
-
Dismissal for gross misconduct
Following a disciplinary hearing, the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Original liability judgment
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, detriment for whistleblowing, and breach of contract.
-
Original judgment sent to parties
The written record of the original decision was sent to the parties.
-
First reconsideration refused
The claimant's first application for reconsideration was refused.
-
Costs assessment hearing
Employment Judge Heap assessed costs and ordered the claimant to pay £75,640.86 plus £7,290.00 for costs of assessment.
-
Claimant discovered SUI report
The claimant claims he became aware of the Serious Untoward Incident Report regarding the death of Jack Adcock.
-
Second reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration based on the SUI report as new evidence.
-
Second reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Ahmed refused the reconsideration application as out of time and lacking merit.
-
Third reconsideration hearing
A hearing was held to determine whether the reconsideration application had reasonable prospects of success.
-
Third reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Ahmed refused the reconsideration application, finding no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the original decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to reconsider its original judgment dismissing all claims of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and breach of contract, based on a Serious Untoward Incident Report that the claimant argued was new evidence.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of the original liability judgment, which had dismissed all his claims.
Key reasons:
- The application was made over three years after the original judgment, far beyond the 14-day time limit.
- The Serious Untoward Incident Report was not new evidence that could have affected the original decision.
- The claimant had already exhausted all appeals and previous reconsideration attempts.
Compensation:
- No compensation awarded. The claimant was ordered to pay £75,640.86 in costs plus £7,290.00 for the costs of assessment.
Lessons & takeaways
- Reconsideration applications must be made promptly, usually within 14 days of the judgment, or the tribunal will likely refuse them.
- New evidence must be genuinely relevant to the original decision and could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.
- Making multiple unsubstantiated whistleblowing allegations can harm credibility and lead to costs orders if the tribunal finds the claims unreasonable.
- Representing yourself in complex employment tribunal cases carries significant risks, especially when facing experienced counsel.
A consultant paediatric neurologist who was dismissed for gross misconduct in 2011 has failed in his latest attempt to reopen his case, more than eight years after the original employment tribunal judgment. The Nottingham tribunal refused his application for reconsideration, finding that the alleged new evidence – a Serious Untoward Incident Report – had no bearing on his dismissal.
What this case shows in practice
The claimant had made a large number of public interest disclosure allegations, all of which were dismissed by the tribunal after a 13-day hearing. He was dismissed for failing to attend a meeting to discuss his exclusion from work. Despite multiple appeals and reconsideration attempts, the tribunal consistently found that his dismissal was fair and that his whistleblowing claims were unfounded.
The case illustrates how difficult it is to overturn a final judgment once the time for appeal has passed. The claimant argued that a Serious Untoward Incident Report concerning the death of a child (Jack Adcock) was new evidence that should lead to reconsideration. However, the tribunal noted that the report was unrelated to the claimant's own conduct and would not have influenced the original decision.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have focused his efforts on the original hearing rather than pursuing numerous unsubstantiated allegations. By continuing to litigate long after the original judgment, he incurred substantial costs – ultimately being ordered to pay over £83,000 to the NHS Trust. Seeking legal advice early might have helped him understand the strength of his case and the risks of proceeding without representation.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case serves as a warning to claimants who consider making multiple whistleblowing allegations without solid evidence. Tribunals will scrutinise such claims carefully, and if they are found to be without merit, the claimant may face adverse costs orders. It also highlights the strict time limits for reconsideration and the high threshold for introducing new evidence after a final judgment.
Similar cases
Dismissed for smoking cannabis on premises: unfair dismissal award for Tesco employee
A Tesco employee with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after being accused of smoking cannabis on the premises. The tribunal awarded £4,395.25 in compensation.
Sales agent dismissed after refusing to accept PR role with sales duties: claims fail
A sales agent with seven months' service was fairly dismissed after refusing to accept a PR manager role that required some sales tasks. Her claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, and whistleblowing were all rejected.
Warehouse operative dismissed for racist remark: all claims fail
A former Tesco warehouse operative who was dismissed for making a racist remark and sending threatening messages has lost his claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, and holiday pay.
Customer service assistant's discrimination claims struck out after abusive conduct
A 14-year Tesco employee who withdrew his unfair dismissal claim and repeatedly abused tribunal staff had his remaining discrimination claims struck out. No compensation was awarded.