Russ v Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust

Case Summary

Ms Russ was dismissed on grounds of redundancy following a restructuring at Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, where her role in the Strategy and Partnerships function was disestablished and new roles created requiring clinical experience. The tribunal found the redundancy was a potentially fair reason for dismissal, not a sham, and that the respondent acted reasonably in the circumstances.

The tribunal found that the respondent established a potentially fair reason for dismissal (redundancy) based on genuine organisational restructuring driven by the need to improve clinical service delivery in response to regulatory ratings. The dismissal was not a sham to remove the claimant personally, and the respondent acted reasonably in applying fair selection criteria and following proper consultation procedures.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether dismissal for redundancy was fair
• •Whether redundancy was a sham to remove the claimant personally
• •Whether selection criteria were objectively chosen and fairly applied
• •Whether consultation was adequate
• •Whether alternative work was available

1 of 9 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Ms V Russ Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust Heard at: Norwich On: 9-11 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge S Moore (sitting alone) Appearances For the Claimant: In person For the Respondent: Mr C Kennedy, counsel JUDGMENT The claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed. REASONS Introduction 1. This is a claim for unfair dismissal. The Claimant was employed between 5 October 2020 and 7 April 2025 as Head of Service Development and Transformation, when she was dismissed on grounds, the Respondent, says of redundancy. 2. I heard evidence from the Claimant, and for the Respondent from Dr Sarah Cornick, at the relevant time Interim Chief Transformation Officer, Ms Catherine Castleton, Director of People, and Ms Georgina Huttley, HR Business Partner. I was also referred to an agreed bundle of documents on the basis of which evidence I make the following findings of fact. Facts 3. In 2023 the Respondent was given the rating of “Requires Improvement” by the Care Quality Commission. In fact, the Respondent had oscillated between ratings of requiring special measures and requiring improvement for more than ten years and had been placed into recovery support with oversight from NHS England. 2 of 9 4. In this context, the Respondent embarked on a number of large-scale improvement programmes, including strengthening and standardizing clinical pathways – the Clinical Transformation Programme (CTP). 5. For the purpose of the CTP, it was proposed that two new directorates be created, the Clinical Transformation Directorate (CTD) and the Corporate Affairs Directorate (CAD) and that the Strategy and Partnerships function, the area in which the Claimant worked, woul…