Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust

Case Summary

Dr Alam was dismissed on 20 December 2019. The tribunal found his unfair dismissal complaint well-founded but awarded nil compensatory award, finding a 100% chance he would have been fairly dismissed on the same date or sooner. Claims of detriment for protected disclosure and victimisation failed. The parties reached settlement on remedy, awarding a basic award of £3,150 and £2,100 for failure to provide particulars of employment.

The claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the tribunal found unfairness in the dismissal process. However, the compensatory award was zero because there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed on the same date or sooner, even absent the unfairness. The claims for protected disclosure detriment and victimisation were not well-founded. Remedy was settled by consent.

• •Whether claimant made protected disclosure on 5 August 2019
• •Whether claimant performed protected act under Equality Act 2010
• •Whether claimant suffered detriment on grounds of protected disclosure
• •Whether claimant was victimised
• •Whether dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A ERA
• •Whether dismissal was unfair under section 98 ERA
• •Failure to provide particulars of employment under sections 1 and 4 ERA

Case No: 3304669/2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Dr K Alam Respondent: Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal (In Public) On: 3 to 6 and 9 to 10 March 2026 (face to face) 11 to 12 March 2026 (in chambers) 13 March 2026 (by video) Before: Employment Judge Quill; I Murphy; B Von Maydell-Koch Appearances For the Claimant: Mr O Ojo, Solicitor Advocate For the respondent: Ms H Patterson, counsel LIABILITY JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant made a protected disclosure [as defined by section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA")] on 5 August 2019 during a discussion with Dr Andres Martin. 2. The Claimant did not perform a protected act [as defined by section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 ("EQA")] on 5 August 2019. 3. The Claimant’s presentation of this claim (3304669/2020) on 15 May 2020 amounted to a protected act within the definition in section 27(2)(d) EQA. [For the avoidance of doubt, on 15 May 2020, the Claimant did not perform a protected act within the definition in section 27(2)(a) EQA]. 4. None of the complaints of detriment on the grounds of protected disclosure (section 47B ERA), as set out in paragraph 7 of list of issues succeed. 5. None of the complaints of victimisation as set out in paragraph 19 of list of issues succeed. Case No: 3304669/2020 6. The reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was not that he had made a protected disclosure. The complaint based on section 103A ERA is not well- founded and is dismissed. 7. The Claimant is entitled to a declaration that his complaint of unfair dismissal (relying on section 94 and 98 ERA) is well-founded. 8. In the absence of the unfairness which we have identified, there is a 100% chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed on the same date (20 December 2019) or sooner. As a result, the compensatory award (secti…