Dr Susan Gilby v Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Anor

Dr Susan Gilby v Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Anor

The claimant made protected disclosures in the public interest regarding the second respondent’s conduct. The respondents subjected her to detriments, including exclusion, denial of access to materials, and engineered her exit, all materially influenced by her protected disclosures. The respondents’ conduct breached the implied term of trust and confidence, entitling the claimant to resign. Her resignation was a constructive dismissal, which was both unfair and automatically unfair under s.103A ERA as the principal reason was her protected disclosures.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Susan Gilby; First Respondent: Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Second Respondent: Ian Haythornthwaite
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Liability Judgment; Remedy Hearing Adjourned
Outcome
Claims for constructive unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, and detriment for protected disclosures are well-founded. Remedy hearing adjourned.
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosure, Detriment, Breach of Trust and Confidence, Suspension, Remedy Hearing
Employment Law Whistleblowing Constructive Dismissal Unfair Dismissal Protected Disclosure Detriment Breach of Trust and Confidence Suspension +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Susan Gilby

Claimant

Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

First Respondent

Ian Haythornthwaite

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Liability Judgment; Remedy Hearing Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant made protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was subjected to detriments for making protected disclosures
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant made protected disclosures in the public interest regarding the second respondent’s conduct. The respondents subjected her to detriments, including exclusion, denial of access to materials, and engineered her exit, all materially influenced by her protected disclosures. The respondents’ conduct breached the implied term of trust and confidence, entitling the claimant to resign. Her resignation was a constructive dismissal, which was both unfair and automatically unfair under s.103A ERA as the principal reason was her protected disclosures.

Court Disposition

Claims for constructive unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, and detriment for protected disclosures are well-founded. Remedy hearing adjourned.

Orders

  • Claims adjourned to an in-person remedy hearing before the full panel on 6 & 7 May 2025 at Liverpool Employment Tribunal.
  • Allegations withdrawn by the claimant are dismissed on withdrawal.