Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust

Case Summary

The respondent’s application for strike out and/or deposit orders in relation to the claim for automatic unfair dismissal and unfair dismissal was dismissed. The case will proceed to a full merits hearing.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's application to strike out the claims or impose deposit orders, finding that the claimant's claims for automatic unfair dismissal and unfair dismissal had sufficient merit to proceed to a full hearing.

• •repeated investigations, the lack of investigations of the claimants’ allegations of mistreatment and collusion of her colleagues
• •whether the claimant had made a protected disclosure
• •different version of events of an exchange between the claimant and the consultant anaesthetist
• •handling of the disciplinary and appeal hearing
• •accuracy of the disciplinary hearing minutes

Case No.2403393/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms Sasha Burn Respondent: Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Respondent: Mr Gareth Price, Counsel Mr Simon Gorton, KC RESERVED JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is that the respondent’s application’s fails. REASONS Introduction 1. This was a one day open preliminary hearing to hear the respondent’s application for (i) strike out and/or deposit orders in relation to the claim for automatic unfair dismissal contrary to the claimant’s claim for allegedly having made a protected disclosure and dismissal under s103A of Employment Rights Act 1996, and (ii) for deposit orders in relation to the claim for unfair dismissal for allegedly having made a protected disclosure. 2. The alleged protected disclosure is highlighted at pg 246 of the bundle. 3. I had sight of a bundle of documents consisting of 597 pages which was split into two bundles and I considered those pages to which I was referred by the parties. Any pages references in this judgment are to the pages in the bundle. Heard at: Manchester via Cloud Video Platform On: 20 September 2023 Before: Employment Judge Dennehy Case No.2403393/2023 2 4. Both the claimant and respondent submitted skeleton arguments and provided a list of authorities, The respondent also provided Harvey’s guidance on strikeout and a chronology. Background Chronology 5. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a consultant neurosurgeon from 08 June 2009 until her dismissal. 6. The respondent commenced an investigation into seven incidents concerning the claimant’s conduct and practice between 2017 and 2020 and the claimant was removed from clinical duties with effect from 30 January 2020. 7. The investigation was stayed for 18 months whilst the claimant brought proceedings in the High Court regardi…