Dr Therese Mary William v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
[2024] EAT 58
Dr Vivienne Lyfar-Cissé v Western Sussex University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Ors.
30 December 2022
[2022] EAT 193
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A doctor was fired from her job after her employer reopened an old disciplinary case. A judge said it was a fair firing, even though it was unusual, because the hospital was in trouble and the doctor's actions were serious. A higher court agreed.
Key Facts
- •Dr Lyfar-Cissé (Appellant) was employed by Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust (R2) as Associate Director of Transformation.
- •She made several protected disclosures from 2008 onwards and had multiple previous employment tribunal claims against R2.
- •In 2016, she received a final written warning following disciplinary proceedings for various allegations including bullying and discrimination.
- •Following a CQC report citing bullying and discrimination as 'rife', R2 was placed in special measures and R1 took over management.
- •R1's CEO, Mrs. Griffiths, reopened the disciplinary process and dismissed Dr Lyfar-Cissé, citing concerns about her fitness to hold a leadership role given the previous disciplinary findings and regulation 5 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
- •Dr Lyfar-Cissé appealed her dismissal, claiming unfair dismissal, victimisation and whistleblowing.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed her claims, finding that the dismissal was potentially fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
- •Dr Lyfar-Cissé appealed the ET decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Legal Principles
Unfair dismissal; Section 98(4) ERA 1996: Whether dismissal was fair in all circumstances.
Employment Rights Act 1996
Victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010
Whistleblowing protection.
Not explicitly sourced in the provided text, but implied.
Reopening a concluded disciplinary process: Requires sufficient justification; ultimate question is fairness under section 98(4) ERA 1996.
Christou v Haringey LBC [2013] EWCA Civ 178
Fairness of dismissal; Section 98(1) and (2) ERA 1996: Employer must show reason for dismissal and that it's a justifiable reason.
Employment Rights Act 1996
Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250: Tribunal decisions should be read fairly and as a whole; not hypercritically.
Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489: Test for admitting new evidence on reconsideration.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
Outcomes
Employment Tribunal dismissed Dr Lyfar-Cissé's claims.
The ET found that the principal reason for dismissal was the incompatibility of her role with the previous disciplinary findings, and that the dismissal was a reasonable response in the circumstances, including the NHS Trust's status and the CQC report.
EAT dismissed Dr Lyfar-Cissé's appeals.
The EAT found no error in the ET's application of the law or its findings of fact. While acknowledging some inaccuracies in the ET's reconsideration decision, the EAT held that the new evidence did not support Dr Lyfar-Cissé's case.