Whistleblowing consultant radiologist wins unfair dismissal claim after procedural flaws
A consultant radiologist who raised patient safety concerns was unfairly dismissed by University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust. The tribunal found the process was flawed because he was not warned that a breakdown in relationships could lead to dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #race-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #bullying
- #datix-misuse
- #breakdown-of-relationships
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Consultant Radiologist from 14 July 2014 until summary dismissal on 16 August 2019.
- The claimant made multiple protected disclosures via Datix about patient safety concerns, including double-booking and staff competence.
- The claimant made protected acts by alleging race discrimination against colleagues.
- A collective grievance was raised against the claimant by four colleagues in September 2018.
- The disciplinary panel found the claimant had bullied a junior employee and used Datix inappropriately.
- The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the claimant was not warned that the breakdown in relationships was a potential reason for dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as Consultant Radiologist at Western General Hospital.
-
First Never Event
Claimant performed wire localisation without informed consent; patient was unaware of cancer suspicion.
-
Second Never Event
Claimant placed guide wire in wrong area due to missing notes; patient required second procedure.
-
First Datix on double-booking
Claimant raised a Datix about double-booking of ultrasound patients.
-
Protected disclosure to CQC
Claimant telephoned CQC complaining about unsafe double-booking practice.
-
Pigtail catheter dispute begins
Claimant began using pigtail catheters for seroma drainage; manager instructed him to stop pending governance.
-
Datix against manager
Claimant submitted Datix alleging manager's obstructive attitude led to patient sepsis.
-
Confrontation with colleagues
Claimant shouted at a radiographer and a junior employee, leading to a grievance.
-
Collective grievance submitted
Four colleagues submitted a collective grievance about claimant's conduct.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct after disciplinary hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, whether he suffered detriment for making protected disclosures about patient safety, and whether he was discriminated against or victimised on grounds of race.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, and the claimant also succeeded in claims for detriment for making protected disclosures and victimisation. However, the claims for automatically unfair dismissal for whistleblowing and direct race discrimination were dismissed.
Compensation was reduced by 100% for a Polkey reduction (meaning the claimant would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process) and by 33% for contributory fault. The awards were:
- Basic award: £3,937.50
- Compensatory award: £1,605.25
Lessons & takeaways
- If a breakdown in working relationships is a potential reason for dismissal, employees must be clearly warned of this during the disciplinary process.
- Making protected disclosures about patient safety does not automatically protect an employee from dismissal if their conduct is also at issue.
- Tribunals can apply a 100% Polkey reduction if they find the employee would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process.
- Contributory fault can significantly reduce compensation if the employee's own behaviour contributed to the dismissal.
A whistleblower's dismissal: when process matters as much as conduct
This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness, even when an employee's conduct is seriously questioned. The claimant, a consultant radiologist, had raised multiple patient safety concerns via the Datix system and directly to the CQC. He also alleged race discrimination against colleagues. However, a collective grievance from four colleagues led to a disciplinary process that ended in summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that the trust's decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses on the facts, but the process was flawed. Crucially, the claimant was not told that the breakdown in working relationships was a potential reason for dismissal, so he could not properly address it. This procedural failing made the dismissal unfair.
What the trust could have done differently
The trust could have avoided this outcome by ensuring the disciplinary process was transparent. Specifically, the claimant should have been given a clear warning that the breakdown in relationships was being considered as a possible ground for dismissal. This would have allowed him to respond fully. The tribunal also noted that the trust failed to follow its own disciplinary procedure in some respects.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case shows that even strong allegations of misconduct do not justify cutting procedural corners. For employers, it is a reminder that a fair process is not just a formality – it can be the difference between a fair and unfair dismissal finding. The substantial Polkey reduction (100%) and contributory fault deduction (33%) meant the claimant received only modest compensation, but the legal victory on unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment is significant.
Similar cases
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.
Protected disclosure claim fails: probationary dismissal for capability upheld
A regional manager dismissed during her probationary period for capability reasons lost her claim that she was automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. The tribunal found her protected disclosure played no part in the decision.
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.
Whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim struck out for no reasonable prospect of success
A contract social worker's claim that they were automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures has been struck out by the tribunal, which found it had no reasonable prospect of success.