Prof Dr T Knopfel and Dr C Song v Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine: 2205131/2023 and 2202973/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2205131/2023, 2202973/2023

Between

(1) Professor Doctor Thomas Knopfel (2) Doctor Chenchen SongClaimant

Imperial College of Science, Technology and MedicineRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Mr J S Burns

Mr N Roberts (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 1 June 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The Respondent’s application to strike out the First Claimants claims under section 47B and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 is refused.

[2]The Claimants application to amend his claim to rely on emails dated 13/2/2022 and 13/7/2022 as Protected disclosures is refused.

[3]To the extent necessary the Claimant is granted leave to amend his claim to reflect the claims and issues in the LOI in the Schedule to this Order.

[4]The Respondents application for a further OPH to be listed to consider striking out or depositing the Claimant’s whistleblowing claims, is refused.

[5]By consent, the Second Claimant is granted leave to amend her claims to include what is now set out in paragraphs 1.1.2.1-1.1.2.4 of Schedule 2 of the CMO issued today.

REASONS

Re paragraph 1 The claims are now sufficiently identified so that the Respondent can engage with them fairly at trial Re paragraph 2 The amendment would add 2 new claims PDs and as such would be substantial. The Claimant has not identified a good reason for not referring to or pleading these claimed PDs in the first place. Allowing the amendment would require further particulars to be provided and complicate an already complex and detailed matter and likely add to the number of necessary witnesses, but without adding much if anything to the overall merit of the claims. The balance of prejudice does not favour the amendment. Re paragraph 3 The permitted amendments are further particulars requested by the Respondent and a slightly fuller explanation about the claimed unfairness of the dismissal which the Tribunal would have to consider anyway. 2205131 2023. 2202973 2023 Re paragraph 4 Whether the claimed detriment and dismissal of the Claimant was caused by his making PDs is a matter which should be decided after a trial before a full panel. The merits of such claims cannot in my judgment be estimated reasonably on a preliminary basis. The case has already been the subject of several case management hearings and an OPH yesterday and it would be inconvenient and disproportionate in any event to arrange another now while the parties are getting ready for trial. J S Burns JUDGMENT The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:(1) All of Professor’s Knopfel’s legal complaints fail and are dismissed

(2) Two of Dr Song’s legal complaints that she was subjected to a detriment under section 12 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, namely those specified in paragraphs 6.2.1 and 6.2.4 succeed.

(3) All of Dr Song’s remaining legal complaints fail and are dismissed. REASONS

INTRODUCTION

[1]This was a case involved that two Claimants who were former employees of the Respondent. The first Claimant, Professor Knopfel was the second Claimant, Dr Song’s, line manager. Although they left the Respondent’s employment at different times and through different mechanisms, their claims were heard together because there was significant overlap between them.

[2]Professor Knopfel was dismissed by the Respondent with effect from 30 November 2022 following a disciplinary process. His dismissal was with a payment in lieu of his entitlement to 3 month’s notice and accrued annual leave. His case was he had made a number of protected disclosures and was subjected to detriments and dismissed as a result. Alternatively he claimed he was ordinarily unfairly dismissed.

[3]Dr Song also claimed she had made a number of protected disclosures and was subjected to detriments as a result. In addition, she claimed that she had been subjected to detriments because she had acted as a companion to Professor Knopfel during his disciplinary process. Dr Song resigned from her employment with notice on 17 October 2022. Her employment came to an end on 18 November 2022.

[4]Dr Song claimed that she had been constructively dismissed and the principal reason for her dismissal was either her protected disclosures or because she had accompanied professor Knopfel at his disciplinary hearing. Alternatively she claimed her ordinary unfair constructive dismissal relying on breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

[5]The detailed issues we had to determine are attached as appendices. The parties should note that we have corrected the numbering mistakes in the attached meaning the versions attached are slightly different from the versions in the bundle.

THE HEARING

[6]The hearing was a remote video hearing. From a technical perspective, there were a few minor connection difficulties from time to time. We monitored these carefully and paused the proceedings when required. The participants were told that it was an offence to record the proceedings.

[7]The Claimants gave evidence. They had each produced very lengthy written witness statements. Professor Knopfel’s written statement ran to 161 pages and Dr Song’s ran to 80 pages.

[8]For the Respondent, we heard evidence from:• Dr Chris Watkins, Faculty Operating Officer for the Respondent’s Faculty of Medicine

• Professor Paul Matthews, Respondent’s Head of the Department for Brain Sciences, Professor Knopfel’s line manager

• Professor Charles Bangham, Professor of Immunology employed by the Respondent, investigated the Dr Bernal-Casas complaint made against the Professor Knopfel

• John Hancock, former head of Respondent’s Central Secretariat, assisted in managing the Dr Bernal-Casas complaint on behalf of the Respondent’s internal Research Misconduct Response Group

• Professor Elizabeth Lightstone, Professor of Renal Medicine int eh Respondent’s Faculty of Medicine, Disciplinary Panel Chair for Professor Knopfel’s disciplinary process

• Professor Ann Muggeridge, Professor, Respondent’s Faculty of Engineering, Grievance Officer for Dr Song’s grievance

• Omaira Fernandez, Senior Employee Relations Manager

• Maira Langton, Respondent’s Senior Employee Relations Manager. During the events with which we were concerned, Ms Langton, for at least part of the time, used the name Maria Lynch as is referred to in this judgment by the name she was using at the time

• Scott Wheatley, Respondent’s Head of Grants

• Ann Kelly, Respondent’s Deputy Director of HR

[9]The tribunal ensured that each of the witnesses, who were all in different locations, had access to the relevant written materials which were unmarked. We were satisfied that none of the witnesses was being coached or assisted by any unseen third party while giving their evidence.

[10]There was a large agreed trial bundle of 6182 pages as well as an additional bundle of 1050 pages. Some additional documents which were admitted into evidence during the course of the hearing with the agreement of the parties. We read the evidence in the bundle to which we were referred and refer to the electronic page number of key documents that we relied upon when reaching our decision below.

[11]We explained our reasons for various case management decisions carefully as we went along and also our commitment to ensure that the Claimants were not legally disadvantaged because they were litigants in person. We regularly explained the process, visited the issues and explained the law when discussing the relevance of the evidence.

[12]Several preliminary issues arose. At the start of the hearing, the Respondent’s counsel made an application for an unless order to be made ordering Dr Song to disclose documents relating to her new employment. Prior to the start of the hearing the Respondent had made an application for specific disclosure for this category of documents which had been granted. Dr Song had provided some documents, but the Respondent argued that her disclosure was incomplete. She denied this.

[13]The Tribunal did not make an unless order, but we did clarify exactly what documents were required to be disclosed and ordered Dr Song to look for and disclose any additional documents she may have. Some additional documents were located as a result. The Respondent was not satisfied that all documents had been disclosed by her, but rather than seek a strike out, invited the Tribunal to draw adverse inferences in relation to the evidence on the basis of the lack of documentation.

[14]Another preliminary issue that arose related to the questioning of the witnesses by the Claimants. It was agreed, to avoid confusion, that the Claimants should only question the Respondent’s witnesses on issues relevant to their own cases as they were not acting as representatives for each other. When setting the timetable for the Respondent’s witnesses, we allowed the Claimants to decide how to split the time available for each witness themselves, but varied this as required and with their agreement. We kept the time tabling under regular review.

[15]We note that during his slot for cross examining Professor Lightstone, Professor Knopfel asked that the lengthy recording of the disciplinary hearing that had taken place on 22 March 2022 be played in full. This was notwithstanding that the Tribunal had listed to the recording in chambers and the bundle contained a transcript. We agreed to this request, as he insisted and the respondent did not object, although we did tell him we did not think it was necessary.

[16]The length of the evidence and preliminary issues that arise meant that we were unable to hear closing submissions during the original listing. We therefore had to arrange a further day to hearing closing submissions. The Tribunal were not able to arrange to meet in chambers for deliberations until December 2024. Employment Judge E Burns was then required to finish writing up this reserved decision. She apologises to the parties for the length of time it has taken her.

FINDINGS OF FACT

[17]Having considered all the evidence, we find the following facts on a balance of probabilities. Some of our findings on disputed factual issues are dealt with in our conclusions.

[18]The parties will note that not all the matters that they told us about are recorded in our findings of fact. That is because although we have tried to be as comprehensive as possible, we have limited the factual findings to points that are relevant to the legal issues. Structure of this Section

[19]The first purported protected disclosure relied upon by Professor Knopfel was said to have been made by him on 24 September 2019. By November 2022, both he and Dr Song had left their employment. He had been dismissed for gross misconduct; she had resigned. The main matters with which we were concerned therefore occurred between September 2019 and November 2022.

[20]Some matters that predated Professor Knopfel’s first purported protected disclosure were relevant to our decision making. We therefore record those first in this section, as well as some general background information, under the heading “Background”.

[21]We then move onto the main matters with which we were concerned. Rather than set out our factual findings in relation to those matters in strict chronological order, we found it helpful to deal with them in categories. This is because the matters were interlinked and often overlapping in timeframe. We have grouped them as follows: 1. Professor Knopfel’s first purported disclosure 2. The complaint which was made against Professor Knopfel accusing him of research misconduct and the subsequent investigation 3. The complaint which was made against Professor Knopfel and Dr Song accusing them of bullying and harassment and the subsequent investigation 4. Dr Song’s grievance and its investigation 5. The disciplinary proceedings against Professor Knopfel which culminated in his dismissal, 6. Dr Song’s resignation. We note here that Dr Song resigned before the outcome to her grievance was shared with her and also before the disciplinary process was concluded. 7. Professor Knopfel’s appeal against his dismissal 8. Dr Song’s appeal against the outcome to her grievance 9. The dates of their employment tribunal claims

[22]We have also included headings to highlight facts relevant to the purported protected disclosures and detriments. Background The Respondent

Background

[23]The Respondent is a leading university based in London with a reputation for excellence in teaching and research. It specialises in four main disciplines of science, engineering, medicine and business. At the time of the hearing, it had around 17,000 students and around 250 taught undergraduate and postgraduate courses over nine campuses in London. It employed around 8,000 employees.

[24]The Respondent’s workforce is a mixture of academics and administrative staff who are employed in various functions which support the work of the academics such as Finance and HR. The University is split into Faculties, each of which has a Faculty Operating Officer who manages the relevant administrative support functions within the Faculty. The academic lead for each Faculty is the Dean of that Faculty.

[25]The Respondent has the following written policies and procedures:• Disciplinary Procedure (Ordinance D8) (3430 – 3440)

• Grievance Policy and Procedure (Ordinance D9) (3466 – 3483 and 3484 – 3491)

• Respect for Others: Harassment, Bullying and Victimisation Policy (3514 – 3526)

• The investigation of public interest disclosures (Ordinance D18) (3453 – 3462)

• The investigation of allegations of research misconduct (Ordinance D17) (3441 – 3452)

[26]The Disciplinary Procedure includes a non-exhaustive list of offences which are considered serious enough that they may warrant summary dismissal without prior formal warnings. The list includes “bullying and/or harassment” (3438).

[27]The Respondent publishes a guide, Imperial Expectations, setting out its expectations regarding the behaviour of all staff. It consists of seven statements and gives examples of required behaviour associated with the statements (3492 – 3493).

[28]The Respondent also has written guidelines for managers conducting investigations into misconduct, poor performance and grievances (3494 – 3513).

[29]The Respondent appoints members of its academic staff within each Faculty to undertake the role of Consul. Consuls receive training on undertaking investigations, grievances and disciplinary matters and carry these out on behalf of the Respondent. They do this alongside their day to day roles, but their roles are adjusted to enable them to have time to fulfil the role of Consul.

[30]The Respondent also has a policy on Employee Support (3463 – 3465) and offers support to employees going through HR processes through several different channels including having a confidential support advice line, access to occupational health (OH) and on-line tools. The Claimants

[31]Professor Knopfel commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 April 2013 as the Chair Professor of Optogenetics and Circuit Neuroscience in the Brain Science Department in the Faculty of Medicine. He was recruited by and required to report to Professor Paul Matthews, in his capacity as head of a relatively new Brain Sciences Department within the Faculty of Medicine. Professor Matthews reported to the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine. Professor Knopfel is German and English is not his first language.

[32]Professor Knopfel was provided with a laboratory at the Respondent in which he was able to undertake research projects. He used mice in his experiments and was therefore required to comply with various legal requirements. In his role he undertook some teaching of undergraduates and supervision of post graduates and PhD students. He also managed research assistants employed to work in his laboratory.

[33]Dr Song commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 October 2013. She joined the Respondent in order to work with Professor Knopfel, who line managed her. This was initially as a Research Assistant and PhD student and later as a Research Associate after she obtained her PhD in August 2020. Previous Investigations into Professor Knopfel

[34]Two formal investigations were previously undertaken into Professor Knopfel’s behaviour (as well as other matters) following complaints made against him. These were the Bloom Report in January 2015 and the Blotto Investigation in April 2019. Bloom Report

[35]Dr Marc Exton-McGuiness, a researcher working in Professor Knopfels lab, resigned after only four months of employment on 26 August 2014 and made a complaint about Professor Knopfel, which included a complaint that he had bullied him and other research colleagues.

[36]Professor Sir Stephen Bloom, Head of Division for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism was asked to investigate the complaint and produced an investigation report dated January 2015, a copy of which was contained in the hearing bundle (169 – 199).

[37]In the course of conducting his investigation, Professor Bloom had interviewed Professor Matthews about Professor Knopfel’s conduct. Professor Matthews told him while he had never witnessed bullying behaviour by Professor Knopfel towards any academic colleagues, he had received some negative feedback about Professor Knopfel from administrators. He had also personally seen a number of emails written by Professor Knopfel to administrators which he felt were bullying in nature

[38]Professor Bloom therefore decided to broaden out his investigation and interviewed four members of administrative staff who had reason to interact with Professor Knopfel. All of them described Professor Knopfel as difficult to work with and accused him of aggressive behaviour.

[39]Professor Bloom concluded that there was no evidence that Professor Knopfel had bullied Dr Exton-McGuiness or other members of his research teambut he had acted aggressively and inappropriately towards members of administrative staff. Professor Bloom therefore partially upheld the allegation that Professor Knopfel bullied staff both verbally and in emails.

[40]No disciplinary action arose as a result of this finding. Instead, it was recommend that Professor Knopfel be reminded of the standards of behaviour expected of him and attend a course in line management. Botto Investigation

[41]On 5 December 2018, a colleague of Professor Knopfels who taught the MSC course, Dr Adam Hampshire, Senior Lecturer in Restorative Neuroscience submitted a grievance complaining about Professor Knopfel’s behaviour towards him, another colleague and an MSc student. The complaint was investigated by Professor Marina Botto, Director of Bioservices/Professor of Rheumatology. She was also asked to investigate correspondence that Professor Knopfel had sent to an administrator. She produced a report dated 15 April 2019, a copy of which was contained in the hearing bundle (367 – 380).

[42]The chain of emails between Dr Hampshire and Professor Knopfel which was the trigger for the grievance was included in the hearing bundle (3526.5151 e4041 - 3562.524 e4050, 3526.532/e4508) and formed part of the investigation. We were taken through the emails and Professor Knopfel was cross-examined about them.

[43]Professor Botto upheld some of Dr Hampshire’s complaints against Professor Knopfel, but not all of them. She found that although Professor Knopfel had conducted himself inappropriately towards colleagues and students on occasions, this did not amount to a pattern of repeated inappropriate behaviour. This was because the incidents were spread out over a period of five years and she would have expected evidence of more frequent episodes before making a finding of a pattern.

[44]Her specific conclusion on the email exchanges we saw was: “..these email exchanges could be seen as undermining and possibly bullying. I therefore do uphold this allegation; however, I also find that both are equally culpable and there was fault on both sides during these exchanges. It is disappointing to see two experienced academics responding to each other in this way, particularly as a student was included in some of the exchanges which creates a poor impression of the department’s academic team and that either could have opted to halt the escalation.”

[45]Professor Botto also found that the email sent to the administrator was rude and unprofessional. He had told her that he thought the email was unacceptable, but that it was a one-off and that his relationship with Professor Knopfel was generally cordial. Professor Botto concluded her report saying she had serious concerns arising form her investigation. The first was related to the language Professor Knopfel occasionally used in emails and recommended that “give critical thought to his email tone and content by only including factual and scientific information and omitting personal comments, opinions and unjustified criticisms.” (380) She considered however that this issue was not limited to Professor Knopfel and could be found in the culture of the division.

[46]Her second concern related to Professor Knopfel’s support of students. She “He seems to have a lack of understanding and appreciation of the different aspects of the duty of care for students. He does not appear to calibrate his decisions and opinions about a student according to his/her current level of ability, knowledge and background.…..He also does not appear to recognise when someone is struggling and then provide support to them or facilitate their wellbeing. As an academic supervising students and staff there is a duty of care to those who may be less resilient or more emotional than others. This should not be viewed as a compromise of the expected academic standards.” (380)

[47]She recommended that the Department of Medicine assign a senior academic to be a second supervisor for Professor Knopfel’s students in the event that there are difficulties and that he should attend training in order to improve his ability to handle difficult conversations with vulnerable members of his group, ether staff or student (380). Grant Funding Issues

[48]Academics employed by the Respondent in the Faculty of Medicine undertake research which is largely funded by grants from external bodies. The funding arrangements are complex. The Faculty of Medicine employs administrative staff to manage them. The staff are a mixture of grant administrators and senior grant administrators who work in teams managed by a Grant Manager. Each grant administrator has between 150 and 200 grant awards individually responsible. This includes providing support and advice pre-award and administrative support post-award.

[49]Grants for academic research are often awarded for more than one financial year at a time. Funding may become available at different time points within the overall period for which a grant is awarded. It is common for grant holders to provide evidence as to how a grant has been spent at various points during the grant award period and report on progress in the relevant project.

[50]There is usually an expectation that funding will be spent in the time period for which it has been awarded, but as this is not always possible, most grant awarding bodies have mechanisms which allow researchers to carry funding forward to future periods rather than lose it.

[51]The Claimants’ claims involve two specific grants which were funding projects being undertaken in Professor Knopfel’s laboratory. These grants came from the NIH which is the US medical research agency.

[52]NIH grants enable unspent funds to be carried over via two slightly different mechanisms. Funds that are unspent at the end of a financial year be “carried over” to the next financial year if authorised. Any application for carry over normally has to be supported with a well-justified plan. has to be. In addition, where there is a surplus at the end of the project, the project period can be extended on a year by year basis subject to approval. This is referred to as a no cost extension. It is possible to ask for both a carry over and a no cost extension and be allowed to do both for the same project.

[53]Significant difficulties arose with the grants which meant that work which the Claimants wanted to undertake had to be delayed. The Respondent’s witnesses told us that the NIH is a particularly bureaucratic organisation which meant that there were some administrative challenges involved with managing grants from it. The Claimants did not dispute this in principle, but held strong views that some of the issues they were experiencing arose as result of mistakes or omissions by the Respondent’s administrative staff.

[54]We were provided with a significant amount of evidence about the particular issues that had arisen for the Claimants involving two separate NIH grants. We formed the view that some very basic errors were made by the Respondent’s administrative staff. The underlying reasons for this was because of a lack of continuity in the relevant staff involved, the fact that the staff involved had a high workload and were responsible for a large number of grants and the unfamiliarity of the particular processes involved.

[55]Dr Song also told us, in her evidence, that delays by the Respondent’s administrative staff resulted in the Respondent being in breach of a contractual obligations to another research institution. This was because a different university that was the primary recipient of one the grants funded by the NIH, but had subcontracted some of the research work to other collaborators including Professor Knopfel’s laboratory and team.

[56]According to Dr Song, the Respondent had entered into a sub-agreement under which it was meant to invoice the other university within a set period of time in order to receive funding. However the invoices were produced late by the relevant administrative team. The Tribunal were not referred to a copy of the relevant agreement, although we were referred to emails which mentioned delays in receiving invoices (428, 3900). No legal action was pursued at anytime by any parties and all payments were received in the end, albeit they were often delay. Professor Knopfel’s PD1 September 2019

[57]On 16 and 23 September 2019, Irene Mollinedo-Gajate, a researcher working with the Claimants emailed the Respondent’s department that dealt with grant funding to chase payment of some expenses claims. She copied Professor Knopfel into her email (432-433).

[58]Christopher Sanders, grant administrator, replied to her on 23 September 2019 to say that he was unable to pay the expenses out the relevant grant fund due to waiting on the confirmation of carry over funds. This was one of the NIH grants. He suggested that she charge the expenses to a different grant and he would approve them straight away (432).

[59]Professor Knopfel forwarded the email chain to Dr Chris Watkins, Faculty Operating Officer on 24 September 2019, copying in Mr Sanders and the researcher. He relies on what he said in this email as a protected disclosure.

[60]Professor Knopfel amended the subject line in the email. It originally said “Expenses claims approval” but he changed it to “gross administrative negligence”. In the body of his email he said: “I would be grateful if you provided us with the account code for costs occurring as a consequence of gross administrative negligence. If the faculty has no such account, we shall consult Alice. In this particular case, a member of staff has advanced expenses in trust of adequate administrative and financial management of two NIH grants performed by the faculty. Instead of informing a member of my group that “we are waiting on the confirmation of carry over funds for the NIR GEVI grant”, a more correct statement would be that we are waiting for the College to act responsibly and in line with contractual obligations and agreements. Also, It is not appropriate to charge project related expenses to a different grant with very different scope, so the suggestion made by the Department is also not appropriate. In the meantime I advanced out of my private pocket expenses as investigation of the issues related to the management of my grants by an appropriate authority likely will now require some time.” (431-432)

[61]Dr Watkins forwarded the email to Shirley Line, Department Manager Brain Sciences (Mr Sander’s line manager) who emailed Professor Knopfel (copying Dr Watkins in) to suggest a meeting to resolve the grant funding issues.She added a request to Professor Knopfel, that he “please … refrain from using such subject descriptions …. until such time as the facts could be ascertained.” This was a reference to the Claimant’s choice of email subject heading (431). The Claimant replied saying, “The need (QED) of such subject descriptions saddens me, indeed, very much” and offered his availability for a meeting (431). Professor Knopfel’s Detriment 5.a.i.

[62]Dr Watkins also replied to Professor Knopfel’s email directly on 24 September 2019. In his email, which was copied to Professor Mathews, he “I am responding to your email, and I see that Shirley has already done so. She has offered to meet with you to resolve this issue, which is the correct procedure. I know she will work with your and Department staff to resolve the matter. I would also agree with Shirley that your use of the phrase “gross administrative negligence” is not appropriate. This could be construed as a serious allegation against a member of staff and could potentially have repercussions. I can understand your frustration, but the tone of your email seems unnecessarily inflammatory to me. I have not copied everyone from your email into my response.” (434)

[63]Professor Knopfel replied within the hour saying the following: “Let’s not construe allegations but consider the facts, shall we? I am aware that Chris Sanders, if you have him in mind when referring to a member of staff, is trying to do his best within the limitations that, as I understand, are above his control. I think I communicated that to him already but just to avoid further misunderstandings I will write to him, confirming, that I do not feel that he is responsible for what may be construed as a serious allegation. Unfortunately, we all could be subject to serious allegations (construed or evidence-based) that potentially could have repercussions but thank you flagging this up. I construe your response as a constructive comment, even so it may be construed differently.” (434) Research Misconduct Complaint

[64]On 9 October 2020, Professor Knopfel received an email from Dr David Bernal-Casas. In the email, Dr Bernal-Casas asked him if he had obtained funding for a project they had been discussing together. Professor Knopfel replied to say he was working on a related, but different project which was not the one Dr Bernal-Casas had proposed.

[65]In response, Dr Bernal-Casas sent Professor Knopfel two further emails.

[66]In the first email , sent on 9 October 2020, he said, “This is precisely what some colleagues told me, that you got a grant to investigate the dynamics of serotonergic neurons. I wonder why you did not tell me earlier.” (848).

[67]In the second email, sent the following day on 10 October 2020, Dr BernalCasas said: “You took my originally submitted/written ERC/MRC proposal, redesigned aim 1, redesigned aim 2, replaced dynamical causal modelling with artificial intelligence in aim 3, and resubmitted the project on your behalf. I recently discovered that you got the project grant from colleagues working in universities and research centres worldwide. You did not tell me anything at all. Based on your behaviour, I believe you did not include me in the project as a co-applicant or project member. Also, I think that you did not even mention my name in the project proposal. If this is the case, then you violated Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). With this e-mail, I am giving you the opportunity to rectify this issue before it causes more problems.” (848)

[68]Professor Knopfel did not reply to either email.

[69]Dr Bernal-Casas forwarded the emails he had sent to Professor Knopfel to Professor Matthews on 19 October 2020, saying he would like to speak to him (847). Professor Matthews responded saying he would try an arrange a time for them to speak, but in the meantime, asked Dr Bernal-Casas for some background information. Professor Matthews told us at the hearing that he was extremely sceptical about the correspondence and wanted further information before deciding want to do about it. He was also concerned to ensure that he did not reveal any of Professor Knopfel’s confidential information to Dr Bernal-Casas.

[70]In reply, Dr Bernal-Casas explained in an email to Professor Matthews that he had intended to move to the Respondent and had written and submitted a grant proposal, supported by Professor Knopfel, to seek funding for the work he wanted to undertake there. He explained that the funding application was not successful. He reiterated what he had said in his email to Professor Knopfel that he believed Professor Knopfel had taken his work and made a further successful funding application and this was a violation of his IPR.

[71]The Respondent has a Research Misconduct Response Group (RMRG) which is responsible for considering complaints of this nature. At this time the group was chaired by the College Secretary, John Neilson and supported by a secretary, Jon Hancock. The Respondent has detailed written procedures which are followed when research complaints are received. It is relevant to note that the procedures record the following: “4. The College has adopted the definitions of research misconduct set out in the UK Research Integrity Office model procedures. The following definitions give indicative descriptions of the types of activity covered by this Regulation. These descriptions are neither exclusive nor exhaustive. Interpretation of the terms will involve judgements, which should be guided by previous experience and decisions made on matters of misconduct in research.a. Fabrication;

b. Falsification;

c. Misrepresentation of data and/or interests and or involvement;

d. Plagiarism; and

e. Failures to follow accepted procedures or to exercise due care in carrying out responsibilities for avoiding unreasonable risk or harm to: humans; animals used in research; the environment; and the proper handling of privileged or private information on individuals collected during the research.” 5. For the avoidance of doubt, research misconduct also includes Gift Authorship, which is the practice of arranging to credit someone with authorship or co-authorship in such a way that deliberately exaggerates or gives a misleading impression of their actual contribution. It also includes acts of omission in authorship as well as acts of commission. In addition, the standards by which allegations of misconduct in research will be judged will be those prevailing in the country in question and at the date that the behaviour under investigation took place. 6. The basis for reaching a conclusion that an individual is responsible for research misconduct relies on a judgement that there was an intention to commit the misconduct and/or recklessness in the conduct of any aspect of a research project. Where allegations concern an intentional and/or reckless departure from accepted procedures in the conduct of research that may not fall directly within the terms detailed above, a judgement will be made as to whether the matter should be investigated using this Procedure. 10. In addition to research misconduct, these procedures will also apply to cases of scientific negligence or conflicts of interest where these lead to research misconduct.” (3441 – 3442)

[72]Following a subsequent exchange of emails with Dr Bernal-Casas, Professor Mathews escalated the matter to the Chair of the RMRG so that the complaint could be considered by the RMRG in line with the Respondent’s procedures. He did not tell the Claimant about the complaint or what he was doing (839 – 846).

[73]The Claimant says Professor Matthews incited Dr Bernal-Casas into making a formal complaint that he would not otherwise have made and effectively made the complaint for him by forwarding his emails to the RMRG. We do not agree. Having reviewed the exchange of emails between Professor Matthews and Dr Bernal-Casas we can see that Dr Bernal-Casas was very clear that he believed Professor Knopfel was guilty of research misconduct and asked Professor Matthews to investigate his complaint. Professor Matthews’s reaction to this was what we would have expected from a Head of Department. He informed Dr Bernal-Casas that the Respondent took complaints of research misconduct very seriously and had a complaints procedure for this purpose. We also consider it was appropriate for him to pass the complaint on to the Chair of the RMRG directly rather than leave it to Dr Bernal-Casas to contact them. It was important that the complaint was investigated.

[74]We can appreciate, however, why the Claimants later formed the view that Professor Matthews had incited Dr Bernal-Casas to make the complaint. Professor Matthews did say in the correspondence between him and Dr Bernal- Casas that he would like to speak to Dr Bernal-Casas to understand the complaint better and that he would “help [Dr Bernal-Casas to] initiate a complaint through the right channels in a way that might help [him] to realise [his] objectives in making it”. (843) Our finding is that when saying this Professor Matthews was merely trying to get more information to ascertain the appropriate way to procced. This comment could be read differently, however, which is what the Claimants did.

[75]Acting on behalf of the RMRG, Mr Hancock wrote to Dr Bernal-Casas to ask him to provide copies of the relevant grant applications. He provided copies of the grants he had worked on with Professor Knopfel, but no further information about the subsequent grant application that he accused Professor Knopfel of making. He said he did not have access to this information.

[76]Mr Hancock advised the RMRG that, in line with the Respondent’s procedures, an initial screening investigation was likely to be required to determine if there was a prima facie case of research misconduct. Before deciding to proceed, however, Professor Matthews was asked first to check if Professor Knopfel had submitted any relevant grant applications. This was a preliminary step to see if there was any potential substance the allegation.

[77]Rather than speak directly to the Professor Knopfel about the complaint at this stage, Professor Matthews undertook his own review of grant applications that had been submitted by Professor Knopfel. He obtained these from the funding department. As it transpired, he did not review the correct material, and reviewed a different grant application.

[78]This was another reason why the Claimants later suspected his involvement in inciting the complaint. They say, quite reasonably, that had professor Matthews spoken to Professor Knopfel at this stage, Professor Knopfel could have directed him to the correct material and everyone would have realised there was no need for an investigation because Professor Knopfel had not been awarded a grant as Dr Berna-Casas thought. We find that this would not have been the end of the matter, as the issue of whether Professor Knopfel had made a grant application using Dr Bernal-Casas’ IPR would still have needed investigation.

[79]Professor Matthews wrote to Mr Hancock on 11 November 2020 saying that his brief review suggested that there was substance to the allegation. The Respondent therefore decided to proceed with the screening investigation and appointed Professor Charles Bangham, to do this.

[80]Professor Knopfel was notified by Mr Hancock of the complaint and the investigation on 24 November 2020 (882 - 883). He was also emailed by Maria Lynch in HR on 27 November 2020 who explained that she would be supporting Professor Bangham to conduct his screening investigation. She asked Professor Knopfel to provide a written response to the allegation accompanied by any relevant documentary evidence and indicated that she would be arranging a date for him to meet Professor Bangham (1071).

[81]The Claimant responded to Ms Lynch on 27 November 2020 to ask for some additional information (1071). She sent him the original emails from Dr Bernal-Casas and asked that he provide his written response by 7 December 2020 ahead of a meeting with Professor Bangham on 15 December 2020. Professor Knopfel PD2

[82]Professor Knopfel did not respond to Ms Lynch, but instead sent an email to Mr Neilson and others on 8 December 2020 (912 -913). He relies on the contents of this email as a protected disclosure.

[83]Professor Knopfel said in his email that his correspondence with Ms Lynch had not resulted in a satisfactory response to his question as to what exactly was the content and nature of the allegation of research misconduct that had been made against him. He expressed surprise that screening for research misconduct was being “led by HR”. He denied that he had submitted a grant application that contained any substantial intellectual property of ideas belonging to Dr Bernal-Casas.

[84]Professor Knopfel then went on to complain that Dr Bernal-Casas was himself responsible for research misconduct. Although not clear from the email, it transpired later that Professor Knopfel considered that the act of Dr Bernal-Casas using the original grant application as evidence to support his complaint, was itself research misconduct because it was a use of that material, which had been created by Professor Knopfel and Dr Song, without their permission.

[85]Professor Knopfel also added a further complaint. He said that the contents of the email from Dr Bernal-Casas dated 10 October 2020 “strongly indicated contribution of regular college staff in plotting false accusations aimed at undermining my integrity and dignity.” He explained that Dr BernalCasas’ email referred to confidential material that had been submitted to an internal review body. He suggested that someone internal from the Respondent must have provided Dr Bernal-Casas with confidential grant application documents in order to target him.

[86]Professor Knopfel asked for these two issues, namely the complaint of research misconduct against Dr Bernal-Casas and the breach of confidentiality to be investigated. Professor Knopfel said that he was informing on these matters under Ordinances A1 and D18. This letter is the Respondent’s whistleblowing procedure. Professor Knopfel’s Detriments 5.b i., ii. and iii.

[87]Mr Neilson replied to Professor Knopfel’s email on 15 December 2020 (1122). Further correspondence followed and he wrote again to Professor Knopfel on 8 January 2021 (1120). Mr Neilson engaged with the correspondence as Chair of the RMRG rather than under Ordinance D18.

[88]Nr Neilson urged Professor Knopfel on behalf of the RMRG to engage fully with the screening investigation being conducted by Professor Bangham.

[89]With regard to his own complaints, Professor Knopfel was told that his allegation of research misconduct against Dr Bernal-Casas would be investigated as part of the same investigation. The investigation into allegation of an internal breach of confidence, however, would be put on hold until after Professor Bangham’s investigation was competed. The reason for this was because the allegation was one of general misconduct rather than research misconduct, but would be likely informed by information obtained by Professor Bangham, such as what information was passed to Dr Bernal-Casas and by whom, in the course of his investigation.

[90]Following this exchange, on 13 January 2021, Mr Hancock wrote to Professor Bangham to instruct him to investigate Professor Knopfel’s counter allegation of research misconduct. With regard to Professor Knopfel’s breach of confidentiality complaint, he told Professor Bangham that he was not expected to investigate it, but if any evidence that might shed further light on this complaint was uncovered as part of his investigation, the RMRG would be grateful if he could highlight this so that it could inform any future investigation into these concerns (1131).

[91]Following this communication, the screening investigation proceeded. Professor Knopfel provided material to Professor Bangham and met with him on 19 January 2020. Professor Bangham also met with Dr Bernal-Casas on the same day and interviewed him. A note taker was present and took notes of the meetings which were shared with the participants to enable them to comment on them for accuracy. Professor Knopfel took up this opportunity and returned a version of the meeting notes with extensive notation added (1251 – 1260).

[92]Professor Bangham prepared a draft report which first went to the RMRG committee to consider on 23 February 2021 (1353). This was in accordance with the RMRG’s written process. The draft report contained Professor Bangham’s provisional conclusions and recommendations. He concluded that neither Professor Knopfel nor Dr Bernal-Casas were guilty of research misconduct in that neither had misappropriated each other’s ideas.

[93]Professor Bangham did made a finding against Professor Knopfel however. This concerned Professor Knopfel’s decision to remove Dr Bernal-Casas’s name from a subsequent grant application without consulting or informing him. In reaching this conclusion Professor Bangham was aware that the grant application did not contain any of Dr Bernal-Casas’s ideas or IPR. His finding was that, nevertheless, Professor Knopfel’s behaviour “was unreasonable, unprofessional and showed a reprehensible lack of consideration on the part of a senior colleague for the career of a junior.” He recommended that the RMRG consider an appropriate censure for

[94]Having seen the recommendation about Professor Knopfel’s conduct, the RMRG asked Mr Hancock to speak to HR about how best to take it forward. We note that paragraphs 46 – 45 of the research misconduct process covered this. They provide that where an allegation of research misconduct is not upheld, but there is a finding of another type of misconduct involving a member of staff, the Director of HR will ensure that HR manages the case under the relevant disciplinary proceedings (3447).

[95]By this time, a different disciplinary investigation was being undertaken into Professor Knopfel. This was the investigation covered in the next part of these factual findings. Mr Hancock was informed that as there was already an investigation being undertaken into Professor Knopfel’s general conduct at that time, a possible way forward would be to consider the matters together.

[96]With regard to the issue of breach of confidentiality, in his report Professor Bangham noted that Dr Bernal-Casas had confirmed in writing that he had not been a party to any confidential information.

[97]When considering this issue later, and whether Professor Knopfel’s complaint of a breach of confidentiality should be referred for investigation, Mr Hancock decided that it should not. He told us, “On balance, it appeared to me …. that no confidential material or documents had ever been passed to [Dr Bernal-Casas].” He reached this conclusion because when asked to identify the source of his information, Dr Bernal-Casas had initially refused to say, but had confirmed that it was not anyone at the Respondent.

[98]It was also significant for Mr Hancock that Dr Bernal-Casas had not known the detail of the subsequent grant applications. Mr Hancock identified that the information Dr Bernal-Casas had included in his email dated 11 October 2020 to Professor Knopfel, (this was the email that led Professor Knopfel to conclude someone had leaked information to Dr Bernal-Casas) was actually information that had been communicated to him by Professor Knopfel himself. Professor Knopfel had written to Dr Bernal-Casas on 24 November 2019 to say that he had “re-designed aim 1 and aim 2 and removed the dynamic causal modelling and instead developed a different computational approach (Al based) for aim 3” for a new grant proposal (423) Mr Hancock formed the view, with which we agree, that this was the source of the information Dr Bernal-Casas had put in his own email.

[99]Returning to the chronology of events, after the draft report was sent to the RMRG, again in line with its written process, it was then sent to both Professor Knopfel and Dr Bernal-Casas so that they could check it for factual accuracy. This was on 1 March 2021. Professor Knopfel’s PD3 and detriment 5.c.i

[100]On 8 March 2021, Professor Knopfel sent an email attaching a copy of the draft report to the President of the Respondent, the Director of HR and to Mr Neilson. He had marked the report with extensive comments and amended the text (1378 – 1391). His cover email stated that the attachment was a public interest disclosure being submitted under the Respondent’s written policy for investigating public interest disclosures and by implication that he wanted his comments to be investigated. He relies on the email and marked up report as a protected disclosure in these proceedings.

[101]At the start of the document, Professor-Knopfel said: “I find it shocking to wildness (sic) the amount of criminal energy employed by academic leaders of Imperial College [Faculty of Medicine] to fabricate false representations and orchestrate smear campaigns.” (1378)

[102]Given that the Professor Bangham’s main finding was that Professor Knopfel was not guilty of research misconduct, the extent of the comments/amendments are surprising.

[103]The draft report did contain a factual error. This was an assumption that the grant application that Professor Knopfel had submitted without Dr BernalCasas had been successful when this was not correct. Professor Knopfel commented that he had told Professor Bangham that the grant had never been awarded and said that “it [was] gross professional misconduct to repeatedly make such false representations,“ adding that, “This whole investigation is based on an allegation fabricated on a false representation.” He said, “As such award does not exist, I consider this as harassment and malicious denunciation in the style of a smear campaign plot.” (1381)

[104]Professor Knopfel’s comments also addressed Professor Bangham’s finding that he had acted discourteously. Professor Knopfel commented that as there had been no successful grant allegation, this allegation should fall away. He also pointed out that this allegation had not been put to him previously saying, “During the interview or any time before I read this document, it was not clear that this was [part of the investigation]. Hence, no opportunity for rebuttal or explanation was given. This is unacceptable conduct of the investigation and again support the claim that this is part of a character assassination plot” (1382).

[105]Professor Knopfel used his comments to rebut the allegation. He argued that, because the grant application that was made (that did not name Dr Bernal-Casas) contained none of Dr Bernal-Casas’ work, he, Professor Knopfel was under no obligation to discuss it with him. He accused Professor Bangham of prejudice, harassment and an abuse of power (1388) and also said that he found it perplexing that senior members of the faculty of medicine expected him to support the career development of a junior researcher that engaged in research misconduct.

[106]In his comments, Professor Knopfel also repeated his allegation that someone must have shared confidential information about his grants with Dr Bernal-Cass and asked that this be investigated (1390).

[107]Mr Nielson responded to Professor Knopfel on 12 March 2021 to tell him there would be no further investigation. He said: Paragraph 9 of [the Respondent’s Whistleblowing procedures] explains that allegations which fall within the scope of other College procedures such as scientific misconduct should normally be made and considered in accordance with those procedures. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to commence a separate procedure under [the Respondent’s Whistleblowing procedures] in your case, as the matters you raise relate to a current process already underway in relation to scientific misconduct. The comments which you have made will be considered under that process.” (1398)

[108]We note that paragraph 9 of the Respondent’s Whistleblowing Procedures (Ordinance D18) (3455) says: “The College has a number of related policies and procedures already in place, including those for grievance and discipline, scientific misconduct and the treatment of fraud, corruption and irregularities. Allegations which fall within the scope of those procedures should normally be made and considered in accordance with them. This Ordinance is intended to cover concerns which are in the public interest and may (at least initially) be investigated separately, but might then revert to such other existing procedures.” It then gives examples of matters that would be considered under the procedure which are taken from Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act.

[109]There were further email exchanges between the Claimant and Mr Neilson in which the Claimant sought to convince Mr Neilson to change his position, initially relying on the preamble in Ordinance D18. (1497 – 1499). Professor Knopfel explained why he felt the matter should be considered under Ordinance D19 saying, “My practical sense is that D18 is thought to encourage the Institution to correct governance performance failures before external mechanisms are evoked. At the same time, D18 protects members of staff from abusive and negligent behaviour that the Institution is not able to control internally.” (1498)

[110]Mr Neilson did not change his position and in fact strengthened it. In his final reply to the Claimant he argued that paragraph 9 was not overridden by anything in paragraph 2 of the preamble. He also evoked paragraph 4 of preamble which refers to disciplinary and grievance procedures. He told Professor Knopfel: “I can confirm that we are treating the concerns you have raised as a grievance and, as they are so interconnected with the disciplinary allegations and are essentially a response to them, they will be considered as part of the forthcoming disciplinary process. You will therefore have an opportunity to defend your actions, and to raise your concerns under that procedure. I would also note in relation to your comments on Ordinance D18 that that the protection afforded to staff who raise complaints is not limited to Ordinance D18, and that the College is committed to ensuring that staff will not suffer any detriment as a result of raising a grievance that is made in good faith. In conclusion, I have assessed that your complaint is personal rather than made in the public interest, and therefore does not meet the requirements of a qualifying disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure Procedure. Furthermore, the key issues raised are to be considered fully and fairly in accordance with the College’s disciplinary procedures, when you will have the opportunity to make your own representations and defend your actions. For these reasons, I have decided that your complaint does not fall to be considered under the provisions of Ordinance D18.” (1498)

[111]We note that the relevant paragraphs relied upon say the following: “2. It is a College requirement that an employee will not disclose confidential information about the College’s affairs. However, where an individual discovers information which he or she believes shows malpractice or wrongdoing within the College, then that information should be disclosed without fear of reprisal, and may be made independently of line management. Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 an employee making a qualifying disclosure is protected against being dismissed or penalised by their employers as a result of disclosing such concerns publicly, while a worker ( 1) is protected from suffering any detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure. This means that, where a disclosure is made to the College, the person making the disclosure (“the whistleblower”) will be protected if he or she has a reasonable belief that malpractice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur and that disclosure is in the public interest.” and “4 This Ordinance is intended to assist individuals who believe they have discovered malpractice or impropriety in Imperial College London. It is not designed to allow them to question financial, strategic or business decisions taken by the College; nor may it be used to enable them to require reconsideration of any matters which should have already been addressed under the College's grievance or disciplinary procedures. Where an employee making a qualifying disclosure is seeking personal redress as a result of the disclosure, the complaint should be considered under the College's grievance procedures. There is an expectation that workers and other members of the College will follow the provisions of this Ordinance rather than make their disclosures outside the College.”

[112]Professor Knopfel’s email attaching the draft report was forwarded to Ms Lynch who shared it with Professor Bangham. He replied to her to say that he had reviewed the comments. He accepted that the report contained a factual error in that it said that the subsequent grant application that Professor Knopfel had submitted (without naming Dr Bernal-Casas) had been awarded when this was not the case. Professor Bangham corrected this by making a very simple amendment to the text of his report. He confirmed to Ms Lynch that this information did not change the conclusions he had reached (1402). Professor Knopfel’s Detriments 5.c.ii and iii

[113]The final version of the report was dated 17 March 2021. Mr Hancock wrote to the RMRG that day to inform them that the report had been finalised with one small amendment (3536.533/ E4079). He informed the RMRG that “the determination that [Professor Knopfel’s] treatment of Dr Bernal-Casas was both unreasonable and unprofessional, and fell below the standards expected of a professor at Imperial College will now be referred to the Department and to HR for consideration under the College’s disciplinary procedures, and if possible should be considered as part of the current disciplinary investigation concerning [Professor Knopfel].”

[114]Mr Hancock wrote a lengthy email to Professor Matthews and Professor Jonathan Webber (Head of the Faculty of Medicine) to tell them the outcome of the screening investigation on 17 March 2021 (1409 – 1411). When summarising the findings, he failed to appreciate the significance of the amendment that Professor Bangham to the report and incorrectly referred to Professor Knopfel having made a successful grant application which did not name Dr Bernal-Casas. He also referred to the fact that Professor Knopfel was currently being investigated under the disciplinary procedures due to separate allegations having been made by other staff members. This was based on the information he had been provided by HR.

[115]Mr Hancock also provided a copy of the final report to Professor Knopfel on 18 March 2021 (1456) and to Dr Bernal-Casas on 19 March 2021 (1459). His cover email to Professor Knopfel confirmed that: “The RMRG’s view is that the unreasonable and unprofessional behaviour uncovered by Professor Bangham falls far short of the standards expected from a Professor at Imperial College, including those set out in the College’s Ethics Code and in Imperial Expectations. It has therefore agreed that this aspect of the case should now be taken forward by your Department and by the College’s HR Division and considered under the College’s disciplinary procedures. I have therefore written to your Head of Department, Professor Paul Matthews, and to HR to request that they now do so. You will be contacted separately about any further action under the College’s disciplinary procedures.” (1458)

[116]When writing to Dr Bernal-Cass, Mr Hancock repeated the factual error about the success of the grant application (1459 – 1460). Specifically he “I am aware that you were hoping that one potential outcome of this investigation would be that you would now be included on Professor Knopfel’s MRC grant. However, I am afraid that this is not an option that can be considered. The successful grant application did not include the computational modelling aspects that would originally have been assigned to you, and although you should clearly have been consulted about, and informed of, this change before the final grant application was submitted to the MRC, the RMRG does not have the power unilaterally to make changes to complex grant-funded programmes once these have been agreed with the funder. The only matters that can be considered by the RMRG are those related to alleged or proven research misconduct, and as you know, the allegations specifically relating to research misconduct have now been dismissed. I realise that this will be very disappointing news for you, but I am sorry to say we do not have the authority to make the restitution you are seeking.” (1460)

[117]Dr Bernal-Cass was not happy with the outcome of the investigation and subsequently made a complaint about Professor Knopfel to the MRC. Mr Hancock wrote to the MRC very promptly on 30 March 2021 and confirmed all allegations of research misconduct had been dismissed (1494-1495). The MRC’s investigation was therefore closed (4021).

[118]Because the MRC had no record of a successful grant having been made by Professor Knopfel, it told Dr Bernal-Cass this. He wrote to Mr Hancock on 13 April 2021 and called him a liar. Mr Hancock wrote back to him straight away to correct the factual error that had been made in his earlier communication by clarifying that the grant application that had been made had not been successful (1516). Joint Grievance

[119]We now move on to facts relating to the second investigation.

[120]In the summer of 2020, a team of researchers made up of Dr Dennis Eickelbeck, Dr Raziye Karapinar and Marcos Sintes Rodriguez San Pedro, had joined Professor Knopfel’s team. Marcos Sintes Rodriguez San Pedro, referred in this judgment as Mr Sintes, was a PhD student who had arrived in September 2019. Dr Eicklebeck and Dr Karapinar were both post docs. The three were funded through fellowship grants from a European union programme known as the MSCA.

[121]The three of them submitted concerns against Professor Knopfel and Dr Song on 8 December 2020 using the Respondent’s on-line grievance portal. We refer to the three of them collectively in this judgment as the complainants, as this language is used throughout the bundle in reference to them.

[122]In the document submitted by the complainants, they described that they were: “experiencing enormous scientific bullying and harassment since we are holding our current positions. All of us feel we have been given severe unfair, oppressive, and intimidating treatment. The issues we are currently facing lead to mental injuries, which also have a high impact on our daily work, our careers, and private lives” (937)

[123]Dr Eicklebeck and Dr Karapinar had met with Professor Knopfel on 4 December 2020 and raised concerns with him. No formal notes of the meeting were made. Dr Karapinar later prepared a note of the meeting they called “Memory Minutes” (905 – 907). We note that Professor Knopfel disputes the accuracy of the minutes.

[124]The Memory Minutes recorded the following: “Since we have started our positions in the Knopfel lab, [Dr Eicklebeck] and I, experience a significant lack of teaching and communication, deviation from the MSCA proposals, unfounded criticism and imputations, and disrespectful behaviour. Therefore, [Dr Eicklebeck], and I sought the necessary dialogue with Prof Knopfel via Teams. Earlier the third affected person, Marie Curie PhD student [Mr Sintes], told us in confidence that he is experiencing the same issues, and that he has major problems with his project and mental health due to the massively impaired interaction with Prof Knopfel and Dr Song. Also, he confided in us that he is suffering from bullying and harassment originating from Prof Knopfel and Dr Song and that he is in need of help.”

[125]They then recorded that Dr Eicklebeck and Dr Karapinar tried to raise various issues with Professor Knopfel during the meeting, but he refused to accept any responsibility for the issues. His response to their concerns about negative interactions was to suggest adopting a shift pattern in the lab that meant contact between them and himself and Dr Song could be avoided. At the end of the minutes, Dr Karapinar noted: “It is no longer possible for us to work in this lab and under these conditions and we are in need of help.” (907)

[126]A few days later, on 8 December 2020, Dr Karapinar approached Professor Matthews in the corridor at work and asked to speak to him. He met with Dr Eicklebeck the same day and then with both of them on 9 December 2020. According to Professor Matthews both of them were suffering emotional distress and it was very clear that they could not continue working in Professor Knopfel’s laboratory. He took various steps as a result, all of which were taken without consulting Professor Knopfel.

[127]First Professor Matthews contacted the person responsible for managing the post graduate intake in the Department and informed him that, until allegations against Professor Knopfel had been fully investigated, Professor Knopfel should not be approved as a supervisor. Professor Matthews then arranged an internal move for Mr Sintes, which was confirmed on 10 December 2020 (935 and 945). He also assisted Dr Eicklebeck and Dr Karapinar with a move to a different institution by finding out that Dr Eicklebeck and Dr Karapinar could carry their fellowship to another institution. They then approached another institution, were interviewed by it on 15 December 2020 and were subsequently accepted (3931).

[128]Professor Matthews also met with Mr Sintes and because of his poor mental health gave him permission to begin his Christmas leave early so that he could travel to be with his family. Professor Matthews told us that he checked with Mr Sintes whether leaving the lab early would have any detrimental impact on animal welfare and Mr Sintes had assured him that it would not.

[129]Dr Song emailed Mr Sintes on 12 December 2020 to ask if he was ok as she had not seen him in the lab the previous day (947). When he did not reply to her email she sent him a text message. He replied to that to say that he was fine, but there had been a change of plans and he was unable to visit the lab for a few days. She sent a follow up message on 14 December 2020 to which he did not reply (1210).

[130]One of the concerns of the Claimants in this case was the extent to which Professor Matthews had encouraged the complainants to make a formal complaint by reason of the assistance he gave them. They highlight, that in a statement prepared by Dr Eicklebeck, he spoke about receiving outstanding support from Professor Paul Matthews and said they “were encouraged by him” to initiate a formal complaint (1155).

[131]Professor Matthews denied this. According to his evidence, Dr Karapinar and Dr Eicklebeck told him that they had met with the National Point of Contact for MSCA on 8 December 2020 who had advised them to pursue a formal complaint and they had therefore approached him to ask how they would go about this. As a result of being asked, he had merely advised them of the various options available to them.

[132]Mr Sintes later provided evidence of the meeting with MSCA and told Professor Muggeridge that Professor Matthews had not manipulated them into making the complaint and that it was them that had approached him about it (924).

[133]When asked why Professor Matthews had taken steps to remove the complainants from Professor Knopfel’s laboratory before their complaints had been investigated, he said that the steps he had taken were without prejudice to the outcome of the investigation. He also relied on paragraph 18 of the Respondent’s Grievance Procedure which states that: “The issue of avoiding contact between the members of staff will be considered before action is taken to inform the alleged harasser/member of staff who is the subject of the complaint. The senior manager may consider making a recommendation for time off for either, or both, parties while the matter is under investigation. The senior manager will take appropriate action concerning contact, including the possibility of transfer of either/both parties if appropriate (although the wishes of the member of staff who has made the complaint will be taken into account in this respect wherever practicable). The issue of relocation must be handled with all possible due regard to both of the individuals’ views and feelings.”

[134]In the meantime, the online submission made on 8 December 2020 had been picked up by Maria Lynch in HR. She arranged to meet Dr Karapinar, Dr Eicklebeck and Mr Sintes on 11 December 2020 to explain their options to them. She followed the meeting with an email that summarised the options (964). At this point their on-line submissions were not being treated as formal grievances as they had the options of seeking an informal discussion, a facilitated conversation, formal mediation or a formal grievance.

[135]The Claimants also accuse Ms Lynch of inciting the complainants to make a formal complaint and to add Dr Song to that complaint. This is because on 15 December 2020, Ms Langton wrote to the complainants saying: “I hope you are all ok. Can you let me know when you will be able to provide me with you written complaints? I understand that Professor Matthews believes he has found alternative places to allow you to continue your fellowship in another laboratory and once we have received your formal complaints we will be able to action this. Please keep this confidential.” (964) (original emphasis) Later in the same email chain, when the formal complaints had been received, Ms Lynch asked “Can I just clarify is your complaint regarding only Professor Knopfel or also Dr Song? (962)

[136]Ms Langton denied inciting the complainants to submit formal complaints. Her evidence was that it was very obvious from the meeting she had with them that they wanted to submit formal complaints and that her letter summarising the options was simply a standard letter. She also denied inciting the complaint against Dr Song, but said that she wanted to ensure the subject of the complaints was clear. Dr Karapinar replied saying: “While Prof Knopfel is the main responsible person for the troubles we have experienced while working in this lab, Dr Song has played an essential role, both supporting Prof Knopfel decisions and contributing to the harassment. We therefore consider both of them accountable in our complaint.” (962)

[137]The complainants submitted a formal grievance jointly on 16 Dec 2020 (962) (1017-1025). The complainants also provided evidence in support of their complaint (969-1003).

[138]On 17 Dec 2020, Maria Lynch emailed the Claimants to notify them of the complaint and that it was being considered under the Respondent’s Grievance Procedure (Ordinance D9). She attached copies of the complaint and supporting evidence. In her cover email she advised the Claimants that she was in the process of identifying a Investigating Office and would confirm who would be undertaking this role in due course. She informed that the first step was to give them an opportunity respond in writing to the complaint and that their written responses should be received by 14 January 2021 (967 and 1015)

[139]On the same date Professor Matthews wrote to Professor Knopfel to tell him the following: “I have been informed by HR that a formal complaint has been raised against you by your post docs. They have asked to be allowed to leave your laboratory effective immediately. This is possible under the terms of their Marie-Curie Fellowships and the Department will honour this request.” (1027)

[140]The Claimants submitted detailed written responses to the complaints. Dr Song sent her written response (1106 – 1113) on 4 January 2021 (1074) with supporting material evidence (1075 – 1105). Professor Knopfel’s response was sent on 13 January 2021. In the cover email he described the complaint as a “mobbing campaign” (1074).

[141]Before submitting their responses however, they both submitted counter complaints against the complainants. On 22 December 2020, Professor Knopfel made a counter complaint about Dr Eicklebeck (1031). Dr Song made counter complaints against both Dr Eicklebeck (1035), and Dr Karapinar (1055) on 23 December 2020.

[142]Whilst this part of the process was taking place, on 11 January 2021, Dr Song emailed Professor Matthews, copying in Professor Knopfel and a man called Ray Edgar. Mr Edgar was responsible for monitoring animal welfare across the Respondent. She explained in her email that Mr Sintes had been in the middle of a series of animal experiments when he had stopped attending the lab. She had tried to contact him in the context of concerns about animal welfare, but he had failed to respond and asked for Professor Matthews’ advice on animal-related matters. (1141 -1142)

[143]Professor Matthews replied on the same day to say that he had not followed up with Mr Sintes. He said that he was aware that Mr Sintes had been undertaking experiments under Professor Knopfel’s supervision but that they could not now continue. He suggested that as Professor Knopfel was the licence holder, it was his responsibility to decide what should happen about the experiments (1141).

[144]Professor Knopfel responded addressing his email to Mr Edgar to say that he considered that Mr Sintes was in breach of his responsibilities as a personal licence holder. This was because leaving the experiment part way through meant it could not be completed. He said that the mice had been through a procedure with no justification and then left unmanaged. He asked about whether there were grounds to revoke Mr Sintes personal licence and how he should go about reporting him. He also accused Mr Sintes of research misconduct (1140 -1141)

[145]Professor Matthews rang and spoke to Mr Edgar about the mice. He also spoke to Mr Sintes’ new supervisor. Both reassured him that there were no animal welfare concerns. On 18 January 2021, Professor Matthews wrote to Professor Knopfel, copying in Dr Song to say that he had been informed, indirectly, that Mr Sintes had completed the animal experiments with the mice designated to him and that some of the mice were being used by Dr Song. He confirmed that it was up to Professor Knopfel to decide what to do with the mice.

[146]Dr Song replied to this email to say that Professor Matthews had been misinformed and that Mr Sintes had not completed the planned schedule of animal experiments. She also corrected him saying that the mice had not been being used by her saying and that she was simply involved in assisting Mr Sintes with some aspects of his project management and experiments. Professor Matthews thanked her for her email (1140).

[147]Neither Dr Song nor Professor Knopfel took any further action. Professor Knopfel ordered that the mice should be culled as they could not be used for any further experiments.

[148]On 15 January 2011, Ms Lynch wrote to the Claimants to inform them that Professor Sir Anthony Newman-Taylor, Presidents Envoy for Health had been appointed as the Investigation Officer (IO) for the investigation. She confirmed that he would investigate the original complaint and the counter complaints.

[149]In the same way that the Claimants had been given an opportunity to respond initially in writing to the complaints against them, Dr Eicklebeck and Dr Karapinar were given this opportunity in relation to the counter complaints against them. Dr Eicklebeck sent his responses to Ms Langton on 21 January 2021 (1157) and Dr Karapinar sent hers on 26 January 2021 (1173). These were shared with the Claimants. Professor Knopfel Detriment 5.a.ii.

[150]Professor Newman-Taylor began his investigation meetings in February 2021. He first met with Professor Matthews on 5 February 2021. Notes were taken of the meeting which were shared with Professor Matthews for his review. (1214 – 1218))

[151]At the meeting, Professor Matthews told Professor Newman-Taylor about his interactions with the complainants. Professor Newman-Taylor also asked him more broadly about the Professor Knopfel’s history in the department. Professor Matthews told him that Professor Knopfel had been the subject of two earlier investigations and that he was aware of occasions when Professor Knopfel had sent emails to or related to administrative staff that he, Professor Matthews construed as bullying, denigrating or, at best, sarcastic. He provided three examples.

[152]Based on what he had been told by Professor Matthews, Professor Newman-Taylor decided obtain copies of the Bloom and Botto Report. He did not tell Professor Knopfel he was doing this.

[153]Professor Newman-Taylor then met Dr Eicklebeck, Dr Karapinar and Mr Sintes on 9 February 2010. He met them separately rather than together. Notes of the three meetings were taken (1261 -1264, 1265 – 1268 and 1269 - 1273).

[154]He met with Professor Knopfel on 17 February 2021 (1318 - 1324) and Dr Song on 18 February 2021 (1326 - 1331) Neither Claimant attended the meetings with a companion despite this option being available to them.

[155]Professor Newman-Taylor conducted a number of further interviews in March 2021.

[156]On 18 March 2021, Xili Shi a Research Postgraduate who had previously worked in Professor Knopfel’s laboratory was interviewed (1438 - 1440). His time in the lab had overlapped with Mr Sintes and he had been his supervisor for a short time. He told Professor Newman-Taylor that he found that Professor Knopfel lacked diplomacy, but personally he had not experienced this as bullying. He recounted how Professor Knopfel had criticised Mr Sintes who had felt very stressed as a result. He thought the criticism was harsh, but fair. He was positive about his experience of working with Dr Song.

[157]On 18 March 2021, Isabell Whiteley a Research Postgraduate in an ongoing collaboration with Professor Knopfel and Dr Song was interviewed (1443 – 1445). She told Professor Newman-Taylor that Dr Song was her PhD supervisor and she got on well with her. She said she had not experienced bullying from either Dr Song or Professor Knopfel and that she had not witnessed either of them bullying the complainants. She said she was aware that Dr Karapinar was working very long hours, 6-7 days a week, but this was all.

[158]Ms Whiteley later emailed Ms Lynch to ask that her comments be anonymised before being shared with Professor Knopfel and Dr Song. Ms Lynch explained that they could do this, but it was likely they would be able to work out who she was from the context. Because Ms Whitely remained concerned about being identified, Ms Lynch told her that as she had not said anything to back up the claims being made, the notes of her interview would be deleted and not used (1539 - 1541). We find this to have been an extraordinary stance to take as it meant that it resulted in witness evidence that supported Professor Knopfel and Dr Song’s defence was excluded from the investigation.

[159]On 18 March 2021, Simon Schultz, a Professor of Neurotechnology within Bioengineering who had had contact with Professor Knopfel over a number of years and witnessed his interactions with students was interviewed (1441 - 1442). He told Professor Newman-Taylor about two postgraduate students who had found working with Professor Knopfel difficult. He said that he personally had thick skin and therefore was able to have a fairly good working relationship with Professor Knopfel as a result. However he had decided not to send students to Professor Knopfel’s laboratory in future because of the behaviour he had witnessed towards students.

[160]On 29 March 2021, Yichen Xia a Research Postgraduate who worked in Professor Thomas Knopfel’s lab was interviewed (1468 – 1470). He said that he had no personal issues with Professor Knopfel, but had witnessed him behaving in a harsh manner towards Mr Sintes. He said he wasn’t sure if this could be classed as bullying and harassment. He provided an example of the behaviour he had witnessed. He added that he did not feel he had received as much support from Professor Knopfel as he would have wanted, but said that he had never heard Professor Knopfel speak about Mr Sintes in derogatory terms.

[161]On 29 March 2021, Dr Antonia Gould, Section Manager for the Department of Brain Sciences was interviewed. She was accompanied for support by Dawn Tharpe, Divisional Manager (1471 - 1473). She told Professor Newman-Taylor that when she started working with Professor Knopfel in June 2020, she became aware that there was an ongoing problem with his NIH funding. In order to ensure that he was fully funded to maintain his animals it had been necessary to transfer some of the funding allocated to the complainant’s project. Dr Gould had also told Professor Newman-Taylor that Professor Knopfel could be “forthright, aggressive and rude in emails” to her and her team and that she felt anxious about sending emails to him for fear of repercussions.

[162]On 31 March 2021, Ms Tharpe was interviewed (1501 - 1502). She told Professor Newman-Taylor that she had had very little interaction with the complainants and would not have been in a position to witness any bullying or harassment of them by Professor Knopfel or Dr Song. She added that she thought Professor Knopfel could be sarcastic and rude, but was careful about who he did it to. She said she was aware of previous incidents and gave an example, but that he had not behaved in this way with her personally. She also said that she had seen a pattern of behaviour whereby professor Knopfel would accuse others of bullying him in order to deflect from his own behaviour.

[163]Dr Gould and Ms Tharpe sent Professor Newman-Taylor some email exchanges between them and the Claimants to evidence that they had told him. These were not shared with the Claimants at the time, but they were appended to the final investigation report.

[164]Professor Newman-Taylor also approached Antonio Di Maio, a research associate at the Respondent who had worked with Professor Knopfel. He initially agreed to give an interview but then declined saying he was “really scared of the possible cross acts of revenge” by Professor Knopfel (1310). Another witness was approached who also did not want to be involved. This was Professor Simone de Giovanni, the Respondent’s Chair in Restorative Neuroscience (1452). She did not give a reason for not wanting to be involved.

[165]Professor Newman-Taylor then sent some follow up questions in writing to the complainants to which they responded. The interview notes and responses to the questions were not sent to the Claimants for comment. Joint Grievance Investigation Conclusion

[166]Professor Newman-Taylor produced a lengthy Joint Grievance Investigation report on 16 September 2021 (1652 – 1673). He attached all of the interview notes and other evidence he had been provided as appendices to his report (1674 – 1751).

[167]His report was split into three main sections. The first section dealt with the complainants concerns that they were being insufficiently supported to successfully implement their projects through a lack of training. He found that there had been sufficient training provided by Professor Knopfel and Dr Song in the first few months of their employment. However, on 4 December 2020, when Professor Knopfel had met with the complainants he had informed them that he would not be providing any further training and they would have to seek training elsewhere outside his laboratory.

[168]The second section dealt with the complainants’ allegation that they had been subjected to bullying and harassment which had had a significant impact on the success of their projects and their mental health status. He upheld this allegation against Professor Knopfel, but not against Dr Song.

[169]Professor Newman-Taylor’s finding was based on the fact that he found the accounts given by the complainants were genuine. He noted that they were “similar in nature and plausible.” He considered the possibility that the complainants had colluded to fabricate the accounts, but rejected this. His finding was that their experience of working in Professor Knopfel’s laboratory had been of an working in an intimidating and undermining work environment, which had reduced their self confidence and ability to progress their projects.

[170]Of Dr Song’s behaviour he said, “I consider her behaviour to be a product of the environment she has been working in. Although it borders on behaviour of a bullying nature I do not believe this behaviour was intentional and no issues of a similar nature have been raised about her. I do not uphold the complaint that [Dr Song] has behaved in a bullying and harassing manner but her behaviour has not been in line with Imperial expectations or that expected of a Post Doc within the College.” (1666)

[171]The final section of the investigation report dealt with the allegation that Professor Knopfel had reallocated the complainant’s funding to animal maintenance without informing them. Professor Newman-Taylor found that Professor Knopfel had done this, but that the reallocation of the funds had not been inappropriate. He added, however, that there should have been better communication by Professor Knopfel with the complainants about the process and why the funds transfer had to be made.

[172]The report also included a section called “Additional Issues Raised”. In this section Professor Newman-Taylor recorded what Professor Matthews had told him about the earlier investigations and the issues with Professor Knopfel’s interaction with administrative staff. He also documented what Dr Gould, Ms Tharpe and Professor Shultz had told him about Professor Knopfel’s behaviour. He treated this as evidence which corroborated what the complainants had said because of the similarities in behaviour, rather than as separate allegations.

[173]Professor Newman-Taylor made recommendations for both Professor Knopfel and Dr Song. His recommendation for Professor Knopfel was that there should be a disciplinary process to consider a case of misconduct against him. For Dr Song, he recommend that she be provided with support and training in particular areas (1673). Dr Song’s Grievance

[174]Before the grievance investigation outcome had been produced, on 25 June 2021, Dr Song submitted a complaint to Professor Alice Gast, then President of the College by email (1584). Dr Song said in her email that she was making the complaint under the Respondent’s whistleblowing policy (Ordinance D18). She said she had identified from the policy that Professor Gast was the Designated Person to whom such complaints would be raised. She added that she considered sending her complaint to the College Secretary, but felt he was conflicted in the matter.

[175]Dr Song attached a four-page letter to her email. She relies on the contents of the email and letter as a protected disclosure (1571 – 1574).

[176]The letter opened saying: “I hereby submit a set of whistleblowing notification under Ordinance D18, in order to draw your attention to the managerial and administrative malpractice associated with the abuse of power and policy by academics and research staff in the Department of Brain Sciences, Faculty of Medicine. In December 2020, I received a formal complaint filed collectively by three colleagues with a set of allegations that can be proven to be false/fabricated and are against the material evidence. Both the handling and the content surrounding my case highlighted severe managerial and administrative malpractice resulting from the abuse of power, and the malicious abuse of otherwise meaningful institutional polices. I list main my concerns below.”

[177]She then set out a number of concerns, some of which feature in this litigation as her purported protected disclosures.

[178]There were two main thrusts to Dr Song’s complaint. The first was that Professor Matthews and HR had engaged in a “coordinated destructive management strategy” in connection with the formal complaint made by the complainants against her and Professor Knopfel. She summarised why she was saying this.

[179]In addition, she complained about “administrative malpractice resulting from administrative negligence and inappropriate financial management” of the NIH grants on which she and Professor Knopfel relied. Again she summarised the issues she said that they had experienced. These were said to include: “1. Repeated missing of administrative deadlines for submission of documents required for annual grant renewal, as per requirement of the funder 2. Repeated inaction and unresponsiveness from the Signing Officer during attempted communication on grant-related matters 3. Inaccessibility of grant budget information by researchers working on the grant 4. Internal budget codes associated with the said grants being repeatedly prematurely closed and re-opened with delay. In one year, the budget was not available to spend on for more than 6 months.” (1573)

[180]She described the impact of these issues in her complaint saying: “Such administrative and financial malpractice have led to recurrent damage to the research activity, international reputation, and wellbeing of our laboratory. At the personal level, I am a named key personnel on this grant and I am internationally recognised as being associated with the deliverables of this grant. Hence, even though I am not the PI, the project was a critical component of my career development, on which such malpractice had detrimental effects. Consequently, together with the PI, I had to invest time and efforts in administrative procedures to deal with duties that are normally to be conducted by professional grant management and finances.” (1573)

[181]She said that the issues were still ongoing. She described that the deadline for the grant extension that year (2021) was 1 June, but despite Professor Knopfel having initiated the extension process in February 2021, the administrative documents had not yet been formally submitted to the NIH because the relevant administrator was again “inactive and unresponsive”. She also added that, “Previous attempts of [Professor Knopfel] to raise concerns internally on administrative negligence ….. was labelled by [Professor Matthews] as an inappropriate conduct of [Professor Knopfel] and resulted in a disciplinary warning being issued to [him]. Given the situation, such power abuse of [Professor Matthews] can only be interpreted as autocratic retribution intending to conceal concerns.” (1573)

[182]Dr Song included a short paragraph in her complaint that said, when the two matters cited above were taken together, the circumstances indicated “a toxic environment and institutional malpractice” and her case was not isolated. She referred to the suicide of a colleague, but provided no other information about this and cross referred to a public posting made by a former colleague who had described the Respondent as “the most corrosive environment I have worked in.” (1573)

[183]The letter included a section about Dr Bernal-Casas, albeit that Dr Song did not name him. She provided background information into the collaboration between Professor Knopfel, herself and Dr Bernal-Casas, but explained that the grant they had submitted together had not been successful. She then explained that a different grant application had been made that did not involve him. She said, “In late 2020, the external researcher had not only claimed property over my academic contribution in 2016 without acknowledgment, but used that to file a formal plagiarism research misconduct allegation against my lab’s PI. Notably, the external researcher had not worked on or seen our 2019/2020 application draft. Yet in their allegation the external researcher provided a description of the content of our application draft matching the version that had only existed for confidential internal review. The external researcher also claimed that our laboratory had successfully obtained funding for this project; we did not. In addition to ignoring this breach of confidentiality and disinformation concerning the internal review, the research misconduct investigation came a conclusion that further damages the reputation and wellbeing of our laboratory, resulting in potential disciplinary action against my lab’s PI even though the plagiarism allegation was not upheld. My reputation and career development have been severely damaged as a member of a lab which has been put into such a bad light, however unfairly. While the College management team may not fully understand or appreciate the value and seriousness of a research misconduct claim to the same degree as a scientist, malicious attacks on researchers in this fashion is and should be condemned by the scientific community.”(1574) Dr Song’s PD2 and PD3

[184]Her letter also included a reference to Mr Sintes, albeit also not naming him, and what had happened in relation to experimental mice when he left the laboratory. Specifically she said: “[Mr Sintes] was engaged in an ongoing chronic in vivo study involving experimental mice when they filed their initial allegation against me. One week before I received the formal complaint via HR, the complainant stopped showing up to the planned experiments and neglected their duties without notification and became unresponsive to communication. In the context of in vivo experiments, such professional negligence constitutes a serious research misconduct and negligence of the responsibilities of a Home Office Personal Licence holder. When I raised this concern with [Professor Matthews], I was faced with a light dismissal and inaction. Such inaction constitutes a professional negligence of [Professor Matthews] in maintaining research integrity, which could lead to severe damage to the College, should research integrity still be one of the values of the College and an expectation of the College’s funders.” (1572)

[185]She added that she had previously raised a concern that Dr Eicklebeck had exaggerated his expertise in in vivo experiments. She said “In not taking action against [him] but rather supporting him in targeting against [her], [Professor Matthews] and HR effectively endorsed low standards in animal experiments” with potential detrimental consequences to the research integrity promoted by the Respondent. (1572 – 1573). This concern about Dr Eicklebeck had been raised in Dr Song’s counter complaint submitted against him. The Grievance Investigation Process

[186]Professor Gast replied to Dr Song’s email on 22 July 2021 advising her that she had considered her letter and decided that it should be dealt with under the Respondent’s grievance procedure. This was because she considered that paragraph 4 of the policy applied. Professor Gast advised Dr Song that Ann Kelly, Director of HR would be in touch with her to take the matter forward (1854).

[187]Ms Kelly did not contact Dr Song directly, but arranged for someone from outside the Faculty of Medicine to consider the grievance, namely Professor Ann Muggeridge, Department of Earth Science and Engineering. She was asked to assist on 3 August 2021 and wrote to Dr Song on 18 August 2021 to introduce herself.

[188]In her letter to Dr Song, Professor Muggeridge asked a series of questions, including for the names of the relevant individuals referred to in her letter. Professor Muggeridge explained that once she had these she would seek statements from them and asked Dr Song for her permission to share relevant extracts from her original letter with them. She also advised Dr Song that she would be assisted by Omaira Fernandez, Senior Employee Relations Manager from HR and that neither of them had had any prior involvement with the issues Dr Song had raised.

[189]Professor Muggeridge also apologised that there had been a delay in commencing the investigation. She said that she was committed to investigating Dr Song’s concerns fairly and promptly.

[190]Dr Song acknowledged Professor Muggeridge’s letter on 19 August 2021 and then a few days later, on 23 August 2021, sent her a zipped file by email. Dr Song copied Professor Knopfel into her email saying that as the evidence presented also involved him, her line manager, she had sought and obtained his consent to share the file contents with Professor Muggeridge and had accordingly copied him in to the email (1618).

[191]The contents of the zipped file was a 5-page letter (1629 – 1633) responding to the questions Professor Muggeridge had asked and a number of attachments. Dr Song described the attachments as Material Evidence and numbered these. The letter cross referred to the Material Evidence.

[192]Professor Muggeridge replied on 25 August 2021 to thank Dr Song for the information and advised her that she and Ms Fernadez would review it on Ms Fernandez’s return from leave (1634).

[193]On 17 September 2021, Professor Muggeridge wrote to Dr Song to invite her to an informal meeting to agree the terms of her reference for the grievance investigation. She explained in her email that some of the individuals named by Dr Song had left the Respondent and were under no obligation to take part in the investigation. In addition, she said she thought that part of the grievance was a complaint about research misconduct against Dr Bernal-Casas and may need to be referred to the RMRG (1757).

[194]The meeting to agree the terms of reference took place on 28 September 2021, following which Professor Muggeridge sent Dr Song a two-page document containing the proposed terms of reference. Professor Muggeridge asked Dr Song to review the document and check that it captured(a) all of the issues Dr Song wanted to be investigated and

(b) the names of the people to whom Professor Muggeridge should speak.

[195]It is relevant to note that Dr Song agreed during the process of discussion about the terms that her grievances against Drs Eickelbeck and Karapinar were outside the scope of Professor Muggeridge’s investigation because they were no longer employed by the Respondent.

[196]Dr Song was not happy that the terms of reference accurately reflected her concerns and there were ongoing email exchanges between her and Professor Muggeridge during October 2021 about them. The terms were eventually agreed on 20 October 2021 (1935). During the discussions, a sticking point was whether the research misconduct allegation needed to be referred to the RMRG. Professor Muggeridge took the decision that it did. Dr Song agreed, but stipulated that this should be only to Dr Malcom Edwards, Acting College Secretary. Her reason for this was because the other members of the RMRG had been involved in the decision making related to the investigation in Professor Knopfel about which Dr Song was raising concerns. Professor Muggeridge therefore wrote to Dr Edwards on 25 October 2021 raising the matter with him (1925 – 1926)

[197]Although she agreed the terms of reference, Dr Song believed that her more general complaint (“Concerns on the toxic Departmental environment that may affect the wellbeing of others - in addition to CS”) made under D18 would be returned to back to Prof Gast for consideration. She noted this question in her letter dated 20 October 2021 (1934). Professor Muggeridge disagrees that she told Dr Song this. She told us that she told her that if the investigation uncovered evidence of wider issues then she would note this and provide recommendations on the way forward. Professor Muggeridge did not say this in response to the email however (1934). It has not been necessary for us to resolve this factual dispute and therefore we simply note its existence.

[198]Once the terms of reference were finalised, the investigation began.

[199]The first step involved the preparation of written material. The final terms of reference identified a number of people about whom Dr Song was complaining. They were Ms Langton, Mr Marcos Sintes Rodriguez San Pedro, Professor Matthews, Mr Scott Wheatley and Ms Shirley Line. They were sent written copies of the allegations made against them and asked to provide written responses. Professor Muggeridge shared the written responses she received from them with Dr Song who sent Professor Muggeridge comments on the responses.

[200]Professor Muggeridge then met Dr Song to conduct a formal investigation meeting with her. The meeting took place in two parts, on 17 and 24 November 2021 (1991 and 2010). Ms Fernandez attended with them and there was also a notetaker from the HR department. Although Dr Song was made aware of the right to be accompanied to the meeting, she chose to attend alone.

[201]On 8 December 2021 Mr Hancock sent a lengthy email to Professor Muggeridge in response to her email to Dr Edwards (2017). Dr Edwards had referred the matter to him. Mr Hancock had provided written advice to the RMRG on 22 November 2021 (2002) and received their authority to respond accordingly to Professor Muggeridge.

[202]Mr Hancock explained in his email to Professor Muggeridge that the RMRG had already considered the matters Dr Song had raised as they were essentially a repeat of the allegations made by Professor Knopfel and had been investigated. He covered both Dr Song’s allegation that Dr BernalCasas had himself committed research misconduct (by claiming ownership of her work) and the allegation that someone had leaked confidential information to Dr Bernal-Casas as part of a campaign to undermine Professor Knopfel’s work. In relation to the latter, he commented that: “The allegation made by [Professor Knopfel] about a potential leak of confidential information was not supported by any substantive evidence, and no one was identified by him as the potential culprit. The investigation did not find any evidence to uphold this allegation and nor did it suggest that further investigation was required.” (2019)

[203]Professor Muggeridge forwarded this reply to Dr Song on 9 December 2021 (2089). Dr Song responded describing the response from Mr Hancock as “substantial evidence for [her] concern on the corrupt and unethical conduct at multiple levels (RMRG/Central Secretariat).” She asked for Professor Muggeridge’s advice about escalating the matter to the Provost and suggested that Dr Edwards had not had all the facts disclosed to him by his team. She attached a document that contained a copy of Mr Hancock’s reply with her own extensive commentary as to what she claimed had actually happened (2092 – 2108) Professor Muggeridge sent a holding response, but did not reply substantively at this point.

[204]In the meantime, Professor Muggeridge also conducted further meetings in December 2021, with Scott Wheatley (2021) and Maria Langton (2025). She informed Dr Song when the meetings had taken place.

[205]On 24 December 2021, Dr Song sent Professor Muggeridge a further email saying that she had received evidence which she believed showed that Professor Matthews was the person who had tried to fabricate a case of research misconduct allegation against Professor Knopfel and that she considered this should be investigated under Ordinance D18 (2090). The evidence was an email that showed that Professor Matthews had been asked to review Professor Knopfel’s grant applications and express a view on the potential substance of the allegation by Dr Bernal-Casas as a preliminary step. Dr Song added extensive commentary to the email (2070 – 2074). She explained that the email had been disclosed to her by a member of staff from central administration and support services, but did not name the source.

[206]Professor Muggeridge responded substantively on 22 January 2022 (2086). In her response, dealing with Dr Song’s question about escalating her concerns, she essentially encouraged Dr Song to have faith in her commitment to conduct a fair and thorough investigation of her concerns, saying that an outcome of her investigation could be a recommendation for a wider investigation if she felt it was warranted. The Claimant did not heed Professor Muggeridge’s advice and on 28 January 2022 sent the document she had prepared with a cover email to Dr Edwards directly (2090). Dr Edwards referred the matter to the new college secretary, Grainne Brankin (2362).

[207]In her email correspondence with the Claimant, Professor Muggeridge had apologised for the time it was taking to progress her investigation. She explained that this was in part due to her own availability, an absent member of the HR team having an impact on Ms Fernandez’ workload and because the HR team were struggling as they had no administrative assistants at that time.

[208]A further individual, Harbhajan Brar, Director of HR, was written to as part of the investigation during January 2022. He provided a response that was shared with Dr Song upon which she commented.

[209]In February 2022, Professor Muggeridge met with Marcos Sintes (2209), Shirley Line (2398) and Professor Matthews (2409). She confirmed that the interviews had taken place as they happened to Dr Song on 11 February 2022 and 2 March 2022 (2440).

[210]Professor Muggeridge met Dawn Tharpe (2697) and Justine Lefois (2701) at the beginning of April 2022. Ms Fernandez wrote to Dr Song on 22 April 2022 to say that all the interviews had been conducted and the outcome report would be provided “in a few weeks’ time” (2797).

[211]On 24 May 2022 Dr Song emailed to ask for an update. Professor Muggeridge replied on 25 May 2022 to say that she was aiming to get the report finalised by the end of June and that the reason for the delay was because she had not yet received all of the meeting notes.

[212]Dr Song emailed Professor Muggeridge again on 7 July 2022 expressing her frustration with the delays. Professor Muggeridge replied on 15 July 2022 to again apologise for the delay. She explained that it was due to a delay with the meetings notes, arising from a shortage of suitably qualified HR administrative staff. We consider it is clear from her email that the issue was not just having an impact on the investigation into Dr Song’s concerns, but several other matters (2833). On 15 July 2022, Professor Muggeridge wrote to HR on behalf of the Respondent’s consuls to raise the concern that several of them were experiencing delays in getting notes back and asked that this be considered (4115).

[213]Dr Song was sent the meeting notes from her grievance meetings on 10 August 2022 (2842). When sending the notes, Ms Fernadez apologised for the “substantial delay”. Dr Song provided her comments/ track changes on the notes themselves on 16 August 2022. In her cover email she expressed that she was“ shocked when reading the notes”.

[214]In the first paragraph of the attached notes she commented, “I received these meetings notes on 10/Aug/2022, almost nine months after the meetings. Given this extraordinary delay, I cannot be reasonably expected to confirm the accuracy of these notes, I therefore do not endorse these notes, but this cannot be construed into an excuse to further delay this investigation since I have submitted more than ample written statements and documentary evidence to this investigation prior to 10/Aug/2022 covering all topics that appeared in this set of meeting notes. The investigating officer had also been offered the opportunity to ask me any questions in writing in July/2022. However, these notes are rather insightful at multiple levels so I will provide comments. As far as any investigation is concerned, the documentary evidence and writings I provided should be relied upon for fact checking (should that be of interest to anyone, as it appears on repeated occasions that facts do not matter much in College-driven internal investigations). It has also been documented multiple times by multiple individuals including but not limited to myself that dishonesty appears to be an issue in internal procedures and meeting notes.”

[215]She then went through the notes and provided extremely detailed comments. Within her comments she flagged up that she had recommended that Professor Knopfel be interviewed, but said that she understood this had not been done.

[216]Three witnesses that Dr Song had asked to be interviewed were not interviewed. These were Professor Knopfel, Mr Chris Sanders and Dr Antonia Gould.

[217]Professor Muggeridge’s reason for not including Mr Sanders in the interviews was because he left the relevant department in 2019. She interviewed others who were involved in the administration of grants instead, name Mr Wheatly, Ms Lesforis, Ms Tharpe and Ms Line. She did not include Dr Gould because she was on maternity leave for part of the time the investigation was being undertaken. Also because she had spoken to the others in the grants team instead she felt this was sufficient.

[218]Professor Muggeridge’s explanation for why she did not interview Professor Knopfel was because she felt that talking to him would not help her resolve Dr Song’s concerns. She was aware that he shared Dr Song’s concerns. She had all the relevant material and was able to seek clarification on any points from Dr Song. She was also aware that he was being taken through a disciplinary process and did not want to do anything that might interfere with that process.

[219]Professor Muggeridge asked Ms Fernadez to prepare a first outline draft of the investigation report. She began this task in September 2022 and sent it to Professor Muggeridge on 22 November 2022. There then followed a process of revision. Final Grievance Outcome

[220]The final report was completed on 23 December 2022. Professor Muggeridge sent it to Dr Song that day (3099). This was after Dr Song’s employment had ended.

[221]The final report (3160 – 3179) was a lengthy document with appendices in which Professor Muggeridge considered all of the matters that had been agreed in the terms of reference. She rejected each of Dr Song’s concerns and gave an explanation as to why she was doing this.

[222]In the introduction to the report, she recorded that Dr Song had provided her with additional evidence in the form of various emails, but was not willing for them to be included in the report. She therefore “had to ignore them” in her deliberations (3160).

[223]The emails she was referring to were emails Dr Song had sent her in relation to which she had explicitly said she did not give her consent to the evidence within them being included in the final report. On 21 December 2022, Professor Muggeridge sought advice from Ms Fernandez about how to treat the emails. At this point the draft report was close to being finalised. Professor Muggeridge followed the advice Ms Fernandez gave her which was to exclude the emails (3701-3702). It was not clear to the Tribunal which emails specifically this covered.

[224]Professor Muggeridge accepted, under cross examination, that she could have explained to Dr Song that the emails would need to be excluded so that she had an opportunity to reconsider her position. She also said, however, that the contents of the emails made no difference to the outcomes she reached. We accepted her evidence on this point, given the thoroughness of the rest of her investigation. Disciplinary Process

[225]We turn now to the next section, which deals with the disciplinary process against Professor Knopfel. The process began two weeks or so after the outcome of Professor Newman-Taylor’s investigation was produced. This was several months after the outcome of Professor Bangham’s report and also around the same time as Professor Muggeridge was agreeing the terms of reference for the investigation into Dr Song’s grievance. Initial Stages Professor Knopfel Detriment 5.a.iii and 5.c.iv

[226]Professor Knopfel was sent a letter dated 1 October 2021 inviting him to attend a disciplinary hearing on 25 October 2021 by Ms Fernandez, Senior Employee Relations Manager (1784 - 1786). The letter explained that the hearing would consider allegations arising out of the Research Misconduct Screening investigation under taken by Professor Bangham and the grievance investigation undertaken by Professor Newman-Taylor and attached copies of the investigations.

[227]The letter set out the allegations to which Professor Knopfel would be invited to respond, namely: “That his treatment of Dr Bernal-Casas was both unreasonable and unprofessional and fell short of the standards expected from a Professor at Imperial College, including those set out in the College’s Ethics Code and in Imperial Expectations. That he did not provide a collegiate working environment for Drs Karapinar and Eickelbeck and Mr Sintez Rodriguez San Pedro, to enable them to be successful in the implementation of their projects. That his behaviour was not aligned with the College’s Imperial expectations and he had behaved in a bullying and harassing manner towards Drs Karapinar and Eickelbeck and Mr Sintez Rodriguez San Pedro, contrary to the College’s Harassment, Bullying and Victimisation Policy. This had led to having a significant impact on the success of their projects and their mental health. That his behaviour toward the administrative staff within the Department of Brain Sciences fell short of that expected by a member of staff and was of a similar nature to that displayed by him towards Drs Karapinar and Eickelbeck and Mr Sintez Rodriguez San Pedro and is contrary to the College’s Harassment, Bullying and Victimisation Policy. That he had breached the following Imperial Expectations: 1. Encourage inclusive participation and eliminate discrimination. 2. Communicate regularly and effectively within, and across, teams. 3. Consider the thoughts and expectations of others. 4. Deliver positive outcomes. 5. Develop and grow skills and expertise. 6. Work in a planned and managed way.”

[228]The letter said that the disciplinary panel would comprise Professor Liz Lightstone Consul (clinical) for the Faculty of Medicine, Professor Stephen Warren, Consult of the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Ms Fernandez, Senior Employee Relations Manager. The letter did not clarify that Ms Fernandez was not a decision-making member of the panel and would be present only to advise from an HR perspective.

[229]The letter told Professor Knopfel that he would be given the opportunity to set out his case and respond to the allegations that had been made, ask questions, present evidence, call witnesses and be given an opportunity to raise points about any information provided. He was also informed of his statutory right to be accompanied.

[230]The letter further advised Professor Knopfel that Professors Bangham, Newman Taylor and Matthews would be called as management witnesses. He was invited to name any witnesses he wished to call and told that he was responsible for making arrangements for them to attend the hearing.

[231]Finally, the letter attached the Respondent’s Disciplinary Procedure and included the following paragraph: “The College’s Disciplinary Procedure - Ordinance D8 states that bullying and/or harassment is regarded as gross misconduct and you should therefore be aware that this hearing may result in formal disciplinary action. Formal action can range from a formal disciplinary warning up to dismissal. You should note that as the allegations could constitute gross misconduct and accordingly, if the allegations are proven, this may result in your employment being terminated summarily.” Professor Knopfel PD4

[232]Professor Knopfel instructed a barrister to assist him. On 8 October 2021, she wrote to the Respondent about the disciplinary process (1811 – 1812). The Claimant relies on this letter, sent on his behalf, as a protected disclosure. The letter did not say that it was a protected disclosure.

[233]In her letter, the Claimant’s barrister said that Professor Knopfel would not have sufficient time to prepare for the disciplinary hearing. She said that the allegations against him had not been subject to “any proper investigation” as required by the Respondent’s Disciplinary procedure. She pointed out a number of flaws in the current process and called upon the Respondent to appoint an external investigator who was legally trained with some grasp of academic science to conduct a full investigation. Professor Knopfel’s Detriment 5.d.1

[234]The Respondent refused the request for external investigation. In a letter from Ms Kelly to Professor Knopfel dated 15 October 2021, she explained that he could raise the points made by his barrister about shortcomings and inaccuracies in the previous investigations during the disciplinary hearing, so that they could be addressed by the witnesses present and the disciplinary panel could reach a determination on them (1814 – 1817).

[235]Professor Knopfel did not reply Ms Kelly, but instead on 18 October 2021, sent a letter with a number of attachments to the Respondent’s President, Professor Gast, the Acting College Secretary Dr Malcom Edwards, Professor Lightstone, Professor Warren and the Director of HR. In his letter he said he was deeply concerned about by the way in which the Respondent’s Employee Relations team managed investigations under the Ordinances dealing with Grievances and Research Misconduct. He reiterated his request for an external investigation as a result. He also said that Professor Matthews was a wholly unreliable witness and effectively said the Disciplinary Panel should not hear evidence from him and that the internal Employee Relations Team could not be trusted to ensure an impartial disciplinary process (1819 – 1825).

[236]Dr Edwards sent a holding reply to Professor Knopfel on 19 October 2021 acknowledging receipt of his email and saying he was considering it (4116).

[237]Professor Lightstone emailed Dr Edwards shortly after this saying: “Hi. I’m due to be chairing this disciplinary which is beginning to take on nightmarish proportions. We currently have it marked for 3 hours on Monday morning – I am collecting the papers today (have had online but realised I needed printed out for this!) and happy to devote time necessary to prepare obviously but he is clearly going to go through every single item and we need to ensure that he knows the disciplinary is not a rehash of the original investigation but essentially to decide the sanctions based on the ﬁndings of those investigations. Clearly he can defend himself but not try and reopen an investigation. I am slightly worried that [Ms Kelly’s] reply implied he could challenge everything in the disciplinary. My understanding is that it is not the case.” (4116)

[238]Professor Lightstone explained what she meant by this comment in her witness statements as follows: “By this, what I meant was that the hearing was not intended to be a new investigation as the investigation had been completed. The purpose of the disciplinary hearing was to consider the findings of the investigation, hear from Professor Knopfel and any relevant witnesses and decide on an outcome in line with the College’s disciplinary procedure. I would, as part of the hearing, still take into account any further representations from Professor Knopfel about the investigations before reaching any decision, and if I felt that there was a particular need to adjourn the hearing to further investigate certain issues, then I would have done so.”

[239]Dr Edwards forwarded Professor Knopfel’s letter to Ms Kelly and asked her to respond to it. She did so on 22 October 2021 (1878 – 1880). In her reply she reiterated the point she had made earlier about not agreeing that a separate, independent investigation was required. She noted that: “[The Disciplinary Panel] will consider the findings of previous investigations but are not bound by them. If, having heard from you at the disciplinary hearing, the disciplinary panel has concerns about a previous investigation, or considers that there are new allegations which have not been sufficiently investigated, then it is open to the disciplinary panel to decide to adjourn and commission further investigation into some or all of the issues.”

[240]She informed Professor Knopfel that he would have the opportunity to address his concerns about the reliability of Professor Matthews as a witness at the disciplinary hearing. She also, however, confirmed that the hearing would be delayed to give Professor Knopfel more time to prepare a response to the allegations and collate any documentary evidence he wanted the panel to have. Finally, in response to Professor Knopfel asking for particular items, namely lab books and animal experiment records of the complainants, she said she was making enquiries about them and would revert back to him.

[241]Professor Knopfel replied on 22 October 2021 on this latter point to say that he was also asking for a copy of PowerPoint presentations that the complainants had prepared. He said he would compile a list of relevant materials he needed that he did not have access to, but mentioned these three items as a preliminary point (1916).

[242]With regard to material in his possession he said he wished to rely on in his defence he said he would provide these “to the College Secretary only under D18 so as to protect [himself][ from retaliation and to open the path for public disclosure in case internal resolution fails” (1916). He forwarded the email to Dr Edwards.

[243]On 26 October 2021, Dr Edwards responded to the two emails Professor Knopfel had sent to him, namely the emails of 18 and 22 October 2020. He explained that the Respondent would not be treating the contents of the email as disclosure under Ordinance D18 because they concerned his matters more appropriately dealt with under the disciplinary process (1927 – 1929)

[244]In the meantime, Professor Knopfel prepared a list of matters that he wanted to raise with Professor Bangham and sent these to Ms Lynch. Ms Lynch liaised with Professor Bangham in connection with this (1977 – 1982)

[245]Ms Kelly asked Ms Fernandez to find out about the materials Professor Knopfel required. She contacted Professor Matthews who in turn contacted Dr Eicklebeck. He told him that the complainants had left their lab books on their desks and uploaded all powerpoint presentations onto Professor Knopfel’s private laboratory server. Professor Matthews fed this back to Ms Fernandez.

[246]On 22 December 2021, Ms Fernandez provided the answers to Professor Knopfel’s questions about the lab books and PowerPoint presentations to him. She also sent him a document received from Professor Bangham responding to the questions he has asked him. Ms Fernandez also notified Professor Knopfel that the disciplinary hearing was being rearranged for 10 February 2021 via teams. He replied to her saying: “Thank you for the note that I received from you today to sweeten up my Christmas time with new documentary false defamatory claims made by my attackers.” (2031)

[247]Professor Knopfel later, on 30 December 2021, sent point by point comments to the disciplinary panel on the contents of Ms Fernandez’ email (2049) and (2050 – 2053) and on the document Professor Bangham had prepared (2054 – 2063). Dr Song had also added her comments to this. The First Disciplinary Hearing – 10 February 2022

[248]An updated formal invitation letter for the rearranged disciplinary hearing was sent to professor Knopfel on 2 February 2022. (2135). The letter was largely in the same form as the previous letter, but this time confirmed that Ms Fernandez was not part of the decision-making panel and was instead providing HR support to the panel. In addition, the letter provided more details about who would be present at the hearing and why. The letter explained that Professor Bangham would be presenting the case regarding Professor Knopfel’s alleged treatment of Dr Bernal-Casas and Professor Newman-Taylor, would present the outcome of his investigation. The letter said that Ms Langton, Senior Employee Relations Manager would be providing support to both of them.

[249]On 3 February 2022, Professor Knopfel wrote to ask Grainne Brankin (new College Secretary and Chair of the RMRG) and Mr Hancock to attend as witnesses at the disciplinary hearing. He gave his reason for wanting to call Ms Brankin as being the handling of an ordinance D18 submission and a Research Misconduct investigation by her predecessor (2202). He made a similar request of Mr Hancock.

[250]Professor Lightstone intervened in this correspondence saying she did not think they needed to be there because the disciplinary would be focusing solely on the allegations concerning Professor Knopfel’s behaviour rather than the research misconduct (2202). In reply to Professor Lightstone, Professor Knopfel explained that he had made a submission to Mr Neilson on 8 December 2020 under D18 which constituted a protected disclosure. He pointed out that the RMPG’s decided he should face a disciplinary allegation despite the fact that it had found no case to answer of research misconduct. He said this decision took place after he had made the disclosure (2204).

[251]Shortly before the first disciplinary hearing, on 4 February 2022 at 23:10, Professor Knopfel sent an email to the disciplinary hearing panel which contained a link to access some files (2318). There were four zip files which contained thousands of pages of materials. Professor Knopfel said that the entirety of the materials were of relevance to Professor Newman-Taylor and the Disciplinary Panel and also asked they consider the information he had previously provided to Ms Fernandez.(2319).

[252]The information Professor Knopfel provided included the following documents which were in the tribunal bundle. The format he chose to provide his comments was to notate existing documents using a different colour font. Dr Song also added her own additional comments on the documents using the same method but using another different colour for her comments. They commented on:• The written submissions that had been prepared by Dr Eicklebeck and RE (2215 – 2243)

• The notes of their grievance investigation meetings (2244 – 2260)

• The notes of their grievance investigation meetings with Xili Shi, Yichen Xia, Antonia Gould and Dawn Tharpe (2271 – 2289)

• Emails which had been considered as part of the grievance investigation provided by Dr Gould and Ms Tharpe (2290 – 2314)

[253]Professor Knopfel attended the first disciplinary hearing accompanied by Dr Song. Notes of the meeting were included in the bundle at pages 2343 – 2358. The Claimants do not accept that the notes are an accurate reflection of what was said at the meeting. Professor Knopfel sought to record the meeting, but was told that this was not permitted.

[254]It was planned that at the meeting, Professor Newman-Taylor would begin by presenting his investigation report. He would then call Professor Matthews as a witness who could be questioned by himself and then the Claimants and the Disciplinary Panel. After this, Professor Newman-Taylor would be questioned. It would then be for Professor Knopfel to present his version of events (either himself or through Dr Song as his companion) and answer questions put to him by Professor Newman-Taylor and the Disciplinary Panel.

[255]Initially all went as planned. Professor Newman-Taylor presented his investigation report and called Professor Matthews as a witness. He was asked questions by Professor Newman-Taylor. Professor Knopfel was then given the opportunity to question Professor Matthews. He said, however, that he would need time to consider what Professor Matthews had said before being able to question him.

[256]Professor Lightstone suggested that the meeting be adjourned for twenty minutes to enable Professor Knopfel to confer with Dr Song about questioning Professor Matthews, but he declined this option. Professor Lightstone therefore moved on to ask Professor Matthews her own questions. After she had done this, Professor Matthews left the meeting.

[257]The Claimants were then given the opportunity to ask Professor NewtonTaylor questions. Both asked him questions. Dr Song said she would be asking questions first, but in fact Professor Knopfel interjected at times during her questioning and vice versa. Professor Lightstone

[258]Three significant

[259]Dr Song began by asking Professor Newton-Taylor about Professor Matthew’s role in encouraging Dr Eicklebeck, Dr Karapinar and Mr Sintes to raise a complaint. Professor Newton-Taylor replied saying that Professor Matthews had told him that he had not encouraged the complainants to complain, but suggested that the question was better put to Professor Matthews.

[260]Professor Lightstone interjected at this point and agreed that the question should have been put to Professor Matthews. A somewhat lengthy discussion ensued on this point, with the Claimants saying that they had not wanted to accuse Professor Matthews directly, but they felt there was clear evidence that he had incited the complainants to make their complaint. They also suggested that Professor Matthews had provided misinformation to Professor Newton-Taylor about earlier investigations into Professor Knopfel and their outcomes.

[261]Professor Lightstone eventually said that the Claimants had missed a “golden opportunity” to question Professor Matthews about these matters directly and that she was uncomfortable with them trying to raise them with Professor Newton-Taylor. Professor Knopfel agreed not to ask Professor Newman-Taylor any further questions that should have been asked of Professor Matthews. He said that he felt that the written evidence he had provided spoke for itself. It was noted in the minutes that Professor Knopfel had chosen not to ask Professor Matthews any questions.

[262]The questioning of Professor Newman-Taylor by the Claimants continued, but was not completed by the time the hearing was due to finish.

[263]Of note, during the questioning, Dr Song asked Professor Newman-Taylor if he had considered the email correspondence provided by her and Professor Knopfel. They had collated a large number of emails between them and the complainants, the tone of which suggested a collegiate working relationship. Before Professor Newman-Taylor could respond, Professor Lightstone interjected, unnecessarily in our judgment, effectively saying that the emails were not relevant evidence and Dr Song should limit her questioning to the matters in the report, which were allegations of negative personal interactions. When Professor Knopfel returned to the topic of the emails, however, Professor Newman-tayor confirmed he had considered all of the evidence available to him, but nevertheless maintained his conclusion was correct.

[264]Professor Knopfel asked if Ms Langton had advised Professor NewmanTaylor that parts of the Professor Matthews’ statement about the earlier investigations was incorrect. He suggested she would have known this she had been involved as HR in the earlier investigations. When she said she had not been involved Professor Lightstone closed down the questioning and accused Professor Knopfel of accusing Ms Langton of lying.

[265]Towards the end of the allotted time for the meeting, Dr Song said she had a question for Ms Langton. She noted that there had been an on-line posting on 4 April 2021 by someone using the name Maria saying that Professor Knopfel had been involved in bullying behaviour. She asked Ms Langton if she was responsible for the statement, to which she said no. Dr Song then asked her why she thought that someone had used the name Maria. Professor Lightstone interjected at this point and stopped Dr Song from asking any more questions about this. She said that it was “scurrilous” to accuse Ms Langton of this. Although Dr Song began to say that she was not accusing Ms Langton of having made the post, Professor Lightstone cut her off and reiterated that she was not to question Ms Langton on this point.

[266]As the questioning of Professor Newman-Taylor had not been completed by the end of the allotted time for the hearing the hearing was adjourned to be reconvened. Events between the First and Second Disciplinary Hearing

[267]The adjournment arrangements were confirmed in writing in a letter sent to Professor Knopfel the following day, 11 February 2022 (2359 – 2360). The letter explained that there would be two further meetings. One where Professor Knopfel and the panel would be able to complete their questioning of Professor Newman Taylor and where Professor Knopfel would then present his response to Professor Newman-Taylor’s report and be asked questions himself. There would also be a second meeting where Professor Charles Bangham would present his report, be questioned by all parties, followed by Professor Knopfel presenting his response to that report and answering questions.

[268]The letter also invited Professor Knopfel to send any written questions for Professor Matthews which he would be asked to answer in writing. This was said to be because he “did not pose questions to Professor Paul Matthews, despite being given numerous opportunities to do so.” A deadline of 18 February 2022 was set to receive the written questions for Professor Matthews from Professor Knopfel.

[269]On the same day, 11 February 2022, Dr Song sent a lengthy email to Professor Lightstone to complain about the way that Professor Lightstone had behaved at the disciplinary hearing. She copied the email to the College Secretary, Ms Brankin. Her complaint in essence was that Professor Lightstone had not behaved impartially. She referenced some examples including the following:• She complained that Professor Lightstone had inappropriately “repressed” her questioning.

• It had been inappropriate for Professor Lightstone to express her personal opinion in support of Professor Newman-Taylor’s conclusions on points.

• She said it was inappropriate for Professor Lightstone to stop Professor Knopfel raising the fact that Maria Langton had been involved in the earlier investigations (Blotto and Bloom). (2365). Professor Lightstone did not reply to the email.

[270]On 13 February 2022, Professor Knopfel sent an email to Director of HR and the College Secretary Ms Barton making a formal complaint about Mr Hancock saying that he had defamed him by making false statements in the letters he had written summarising the outcome of the research misconduct screening investigation. He was referring to the fact that Jon Hancock had mistakenly said in those letters that Professor Knopfel’s subsequent grant application had been successful. Ms Kelly was asked to deal with the complaint. Once she understood what the mistake was and that Mr Hancock had realised and corrected it in subsequent correspondence, she wrote to Professor Knopfel to explain the outcome of her initial investigation and tell him that she did not believe it would be appropriate or proportionate to undertake a formal investigation. She sent him this letter on 25 February 2022 (2405 - 2406).

[271]On 16 February 2022, Dr Song wrote to Ms Fernandez to say that Professor Knopfel was unwell and could not meet the deadline for sending written questions to Professor Matthews. (2375). She did not indicate whether Professor Knopfel wished to have an extension of time. Professor Knopfel did not at any point prepare questions in writing for Professor Matthews.

[272]On 3 March 2022, the dates of the planned subsequent meetings were sent to Professor Knopfel by letter (2438). The letter was not copied to Dr Song who objected to this and to one of the dates. Following an exchange of emails it was agreed that Dr Song would be sent all invitations and the date of the meeting she could not attend would be changed.

[273]The minutes of the meeting from 10 February 2021 were sent to Professor Knopfel and Dr Song on 9 March 2021 (2452). Professor Knopfel also made a subject access request for any earlier draft versions of the minutes before they were amended by Ms Fernandez and Professor Lightstone. He was provided with these on 15 March 2022. We note that in the original draft Professor Lightstone is recorded as saying that a “golden” opportunity was missed, but the word “golden” was removed from the final version. (2592) (2597 – 2617) Second Disciplinary Hearing: 10 March 2022

[274]The second disciplinary hearing took place on 10 March 2022. Notes of the meeting were included in the bundle (2471 – 2488). In addition, Professor Knopfel made a covert recording of the meeting. This is the recording that was played during the hearing. The Claimants also prepared a transcript of the recording, although this was not agreed (2489 – 2562).

[275]The Claimants continued their questioning of Professor Newman-Taylor during the second disciplinary hearing. The questioning was not particularly structured and there was a great deal of overlap between the questions both Claimants were asking. In addition, often when asking his questions, Professor Knopfel began making lengthy submissions rather than asking questions. One important matter to note is that Professor Lightstone closed down questions that Dr Song wanted to put to Professor Newman-Taylor about what training and experience he had in conducting bullying and harassment investigations and explore what outcomes he had reached previously. Professor Lightstone said that this was not a permitted line of questioning. Shortly after this, the disciplinary hearing descended into a somewhat heated discussion about whether Professor Knopfel’s evidence had been considered and whether he had been given all the necessary information about the allegations against him. A short break was taken.

[276]After everyone returned, Professor Lightstone said that she thought it might be more valuable for the Disciplinary Panel to hear what Professor Knopfel had to say in response to the allegations rather than repeated questioning of Professor Newman-Taylor on areas that he had already been asked about. This was an attempt by Professor Lightstone to use the time available effectively, but her intervention was considered unhelpful by Professor Knopfel. He said that as he had already lost a golden opportunity to ask another witness questions he did not want the same to happen here. The questioning therefore continued, although actually turned into a discussion in which Professor Lightstone contributed significantly as to the definition of bullying and how findings of bullying are made in an internal investigation. There was then a further break.

[277]The questioning continued in the final part of the meeting. During this part of the meeting, Professor Knopfel became increasingly agitated. He made a number of sarcastic comments. Although Professor Newton-Taylor had not found against him with regard to the funds transfer issue, Professor Knopfel took issue with some of his findings in relation to this matter. When he started to asked a question which appeared to include the word conspire, which Professor Lightstone and Professor Newman-Taylor took this to be a question to Professor Newman-Taylor accusing him of conspiring with the complainants.

[278]The minutes of the meeting note Professor Knopfel’s response at this point as follows: “TK stated that was not what he was saying and the whole process was driving him crazy and mad. TK stated he would not take this shit and now he was being fucking accused of something.”

[279]Professor Knopfel denies that he said the word “fuck” at this point. Dr Song corroborates his version of events. The Respondent’s witnesses, who were present at the hearing at the time, all told us that they were sure they heard him use this word. The word is not audible on the covert recording, although Professor Knopfel can be clearly heard saying the word “shit” twice while getting very upset and there is a gap.

[280]We were invited by the Claimant’s to make finding that Professor did not say the word “fuck” and the Respondent has fabricated this to discredit him. We were invited by the Respondent to find that Professor Knopfel did say the word “fuck” and deliberately provided a corrupted recording to try to cover this up. We do not think it is helpful to either side’s case to focus on this issue. We think it entirely plausible both that the Respondent’s witnesses thought they heard the word because Professor Knopfel was ranting and it would have fitted the context even though he did not actually say it. People convince themselves of things that are not true all the time. Equally it is entirely plausible that he did say it and it was not captured on the recording, along with other parts of what people said and he and Dr S9ng had convinced themselves that he cannot have said it because it was not recorded.

[281]Our finding is that Professor Knopfel became upset because he was about to say something about Professor Newman-Taylor conspiring against him, but he was trying to avoid accusing him of this explicitly. However, he was struggling with language at this point. Rather than wait for him to get his question out, Professor Lightstone interrupted him and accused him of a making a serious allegation. Professor Knopfel lost control of his emotions at this point and swore. He may or may not have use the word “fuck” when he swore. The situation was not helped by Professor Lightstone’s reaction. She could and should have allowed Professor Knopfel to put the allegation that Professor Newman-Taylor had conspired with the complainants without it being treated so seriously. What Professor Knopfel was actually getting at what that he thought that Professor Newman-Taylor had allowed himself to be manipulated by the complainants.

[282]Despite the swearing incident, the meeting continued for a further fine or so minutes with some additional sensible questions being asked by Dr Song. It then came to an end as the time allowed finished.

[283]Following the hearing, on 14 March 2022, Professor Lightstone wrote to Professor Knopfel, copying in Professor Warren, Professor Newman-Taylor, Mr Fernadez, Ms Langton and Dr Song (2587, 2590 – 2591). Her letter said: Following the disciplinary hearing on 10th March, I am writing to express my extreme displeasure at the behaviour both Dr Song and you have displayed during these proceedings. You have both been hostile, rude, and disrespectful towards Professor Newman Taylor and me. Whilst I did not address your behaviour in writing following the last disciplinary hearing, I now feel compelled to do so. So far, during the hearing on 10 March, you accused Professor Newman Taylor of collusion and during the hearing on 10 February, Dr Song accused Maria Langton of posting anonymous comments on social media which accused you of bullying. Your line of questioning towards Professor Newman Taylor has been accusatory, you have asked him to respond to issues which relate to Professor Matthews, despite being given ample opportunity to put questions directly to Professor Matthews and the option of submitting questions to him in writing. Whilst I understand that this process can be stressful, it does not give you the right to act in this manner. Your use of expletives during the hearing on the 10th March was wholly unacceptable and caused distress to all the parties present. I would like to remind you of the Imperial expectations and values:• To treat individuals with respect.

• To ask questions and listen with care in order to understand better. Respect - we treat each other fairly and appropriately, with kindness and respect, valuing each person’s individual experience, perspectives, and contribution. We are in the process of scheduling a further date for your disciplinary hearing. If you have not completed your questioning of Professor Newman Taylor, you will be asked to submit any further questions in writing, based on his investigation report only. I will ask Professor Newman Taylor to respond to those questions he feels are appropriate. At the further date for the hearing, you will be given 90 minutes to state your case verbally in response. You are required to abide by these parameters. Should your conduct and that of Dr Song continue in the same way during the next disciplinary hearing, I will have no other option than to terminate the hearing and to proceed with sending you the outcome, based on the information available to Professor Warren and myself in both investigation reports and on what we have heard so far. I trust I have made my position clear on my expectations going forward.” (2590)

[284]In response to receiving the letter from Professor Lightstone, Dr Song wrote on 20 March 2022 (2623 – 2635) to the Respondent’s Chair of Council, the Provost and the Senior Consul. The letter was marked confidential. In it she said, she wished to raise their “awareness of her concern on multiple unacceptable conducts of a serving College Consul Professor Liz Lightstone that would constitute a risk to College integrity and governance.” She then summarised her concerns. She said the main issues with Professor Lightstone’s behaviour were: “1. Unacceptable conduct …. that would constitute misrepresentation of facts that corrupts formal College proceedings. 2. Unacceptable conduct … that would constitute abuse of power. 3. Unacceptable conduct … that would constitute harassment, bullying, and victimisation. 4. Demonstrable bankruptcy of honesty, integrity and fairness ….during formal College proceedings.” (2625)

[285]The complaint was never shared with Professor Lightstone. Instead it was referred to Ms Kelly who advised the recipients on how to respond. They replied jointly on 23 March 2022 to the Claimant saying it would not be appropriate for them to comment because of the ongoing disciplinary process and that they has asked Ms Kelly to respond to her (2637).

[286]Ms Kelly sent the Claimant a letter dated 25 March 2022 saying that as she had not been present at the disciplinary hearing she could not comment on the specifical allegations. She then went on to effectively defend Professor Lightstone’s right to have sent her the letter of 14 March 2022 (2722). Me Kelly told the Tribunal that she did believe it was necessary to investigate Dr Song's complaints in relation to Professor Lightstone because Dr Song had not asked for an investigation. She had interpreted her letter to largely be her commentary on the recent disciplinary proceedings. She believed it was in everyone's best interests to reach a conclusion as quickly as reasonably possible.

[287]The Claimant later replied (on 11 April 2022) thanking Ms Kelly for her “elaborate response” and saying that it did not address her concerns. She indicated that she expected to receive a response from Professor Lightstone (2721). There was no further correspondence from either side in relation to this matter. The Next Part of the Disciplinary Process

[288]In the meantime, on 24 March 2022, the Claimant had been provided with revised dates for the next part of the disciplinary hearing (2641 – 2642). It was envisaged there would be two further meetings on 4 and 6 April 2022. Professor Knopfel was asked to send any further questions for Professor Newman-Taylor and questions for Professor Bangham to Professor Lightstone in writing by 29 March 2022. The letter also provided some additional information that Professor Knopfel had requested.

[289]On 29 March 2022, Dr Song wrote directly to Professor Newman-Taylor asking him 88 questions on behalf of Professor Knopfel (2652). The questions covered ten pages of A4 (2654 – 2663).

[290]On 1 April 2022, Professor Knopfel asked that the disciplinary hearing on 4 April 2022 be postponed, largely for personal reasons (2699). This was agreed.

[291]Professor Lightstone wrote to Professor Knopfel on 4 April 2022 confirming the postponement and explaining that having reviewed the questions for Professor Newman-Taylor, she would be asking him to answer just four of them. Her explanation for this was because she felt a response to the other questions would not add any clarity to the information contained in the investigation report and that had been discussed at the earlier hearings. She noted that no questions had been sent for Professor Bangham and that therefore it was assumed that Professor Knopfel had no questions for him.

[292]She concluded her letter saying that: “The hearing that will be reconvened, will be for you to present your case in response to the allegations. You will be given a maximum of 90 minutes to do this. Whilst Dr Song can present the case on your behalf, she will not be permitted to answer questions that may be put to you by Professor Newman Taylor and the panel. We will aim to confirm a date (likely to be in May) this week.” (2672) Within the body of her letter, Professor Lightstone also said: “I am reiterating that I found the conduct of Dr Song and yourself during the previous two hearings to be totally inappropriate. If there is any further repeat of this behaviour, including, but not limited to, outbursts of anger and swearing, as well as impugning the integrity of the investigating officer, I reserve the right to halt the proceedings when the hearing is reconvened and I will then make a decision on this part of the hearing based on the information I have.” (2672)

[293]Professor Newman-Taylor provided his written response to the four questions on 5 April 2022. (2693 – 2694)

[294]Also on that date, the minutes from the meeting on 10 March 2022 were sent to the Claimants. Dr Song replied that evening to say that having seen the reference in the minutes that said he had sworn, Dr Knopfel was distressed and incapacitated. She described the allegation that he swore as fabricated (2675). This led to the next part of the disciplinary hearing due to take place on 6 April 2022 being cancelled. It had been at this meeting that Professor Bangham was due to present his report.

[295]In light of Professor Knopfel’s stated incapacitation, Professor Lightstone wrote to him on 11 April 2022 reminding him that of the support available to him and offering him the option to be referred to Occupational Health. She said that two further disciplinary meetings would be convened when she knew what was happening with the OH referral and asked for a response by 20 April 2022. She added, “I am clear that the expletives documented on page 16 of the hearing notes were said by you during the hearing and such language was wholly inappropriate and all other parties that attended the hearing can attest to this.” (2719 – 2720).

[296]On 20 April 2022, Professor Knopfel wrote to Professor Lightstone to say that he would not be attending any further meetings and wanted all future interactions to be in writing. He said that his reason for this was because, “after careful consideration of [her] letters, [her] personal behaviour and the modus operandi of [her] procedure, it [was his] opinion that further interactions with [her] in person [were] not constructive nor [could] they reasonably be expected from [him].” (2736)

[297]Professor Lightstone responded on 10 May 2022 saying that although she did not agree with Professor Knopfel, the Respondent would accommodate his request if he wished. Professor Knopfel was informed that he would be able to provide his written response to the allegations arising out of Professor Newman-Taylor’s investigation by 20 May 2022, following which the Disciplinary Panel would send him any questions they had in writing. It was proposed that there would be a further hearing in person with Professor Bangham, however, but he was away until early June. The option of adopting a written process in relation to Professor Bangahm’s investigation was also available, however.(2743 - 2744).

[298]Professor Knopfel failed to submit a written response to the allegations arising out of Professor Newman-Taylor’s investigation. The Disciplinary Panel sent questions in writing from them in any event on 13 June 2022 (2751). He provided replies to the questions (2790 – 2792) and supporting evidence on 26 June 2022 (2765). The final Disciplinary Hearing

[299]On 6 July 2022, Professor Knopfel was invited by Professor Lightstone to attend a further disciplinary hearing on Monday 18 July 2022 at which he could question Professor Bangham (2794).

[300]Professor Knopfel replied on 13 July 2022 saying he would not be attending (2799 – 2800). In his letter, Professor Knopfel accused Professor Lightstone of bullying and abusive behaviour. He noted that she had said in her email of 6 July 2022 that she would be ignoring the large body of material evidence he had provided to the Disciplinary Panel when this is not what her letter of 6 July 2022 had said at all. The last paragraph of Professor Lightstone’s letter had been a standard paragraph reminding him to keep the disciplinary process confidential and warning him that a failure to do so could result in disciplinary action. He described this as a “threatening statement which alone may be a criminal offence (e.g. coercive control).” He suggested that the Respondent’s reliance on “fabricated” evidence (namely the investigations) was criminal and in reach of The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. He concluded by saying that: “it is my opinion that your conduct and the conspiration with the conduct of others not only shames and discredits [the Respondent] as an institution that claims to comply with defined ethical and scientific standards and the rule of law.” (2800)

[301]On 16 July 2022, Dr Song responded to the invitation to the disciplinary hearing, which had also been copied to her. She said that she was no longer acting as Professor Knopfel’s nominated work colleague saying this was due to the “unreasonable claims from the Chair of the panel including but not limited to accusing [her] of being “hostile, rude, and disrespectful” after the last reconvened hearing.” She said she found such “unsubstantiated claims to be of threatening nature thereby making [her] position as a representative untenable, and [she did] not wish to be further subject to such intimidation”. She added, however, that she would be happy to serve as a witness in writing in connection with the allegations (2827).

[302]The disciplinary hearing proceeded on 18 July 2022 without Professor Knopfel in attendance. Notes of the meeting were included in the bundle (2884 - 2982). Professor Knopfel appears to have provided a helpful one page summary of his response to the allegations (2793).The panel considered whether they needed to ask Dr Song any questions as a witness and decided against this. The panel did, however, undertake some further investigations following the hearing.

[303]The disciplinary panel sent the Claimant a copy of the notes from the hearing and some questions (2883) by email on 5 September 2022 (2882). He replied with his responses to the questions on 16 September 2022 (2902 - 2910). Professor Knopfel PD5 and Detriments 5.b.iv. and 5.e.i.

[304]On 18 September 2022, Professor Knopfel emailed Professor Warren directly, copying in the Respondent’s President, and College Secretary (2899 – 2900). He said that he was writing to Professor Warren not as a member of the Disciplinary Panel, but as a colleague. We find this was disingenuous as Professor Knopfel was fully aware that Professor Warren’s knowledge of the matters about which he was writing to him arose only because he was a member of the Disciplinary Panel. He relies on the contents of this email as a protected disclosure.

[305]In his email, Professor Knopfel said that the minutes of the disciplinary hearing revealed that Professor Bangham had never had any intention to investigate the two concerns Professor Knopfel had raised at the time of the Dr Bernal-Casas complaint. These concerns were that Dr Bernal-Casas had himself committed research misconduct and that Professor Knopfel believed that there had been a breach of confidentiality. He described this as a “breach of confidentiality and provision of disinformation by members of the College to achieve a smear campaign against me”.

[306]Professor Knopfel informed Professor Warren that he had submitted both concerns as a whistleblowing notification under D18, but they had not been investigated despite the assurance of the (then) College Secretary John Neilson that this would happen. Professor Knopfel interpreted the discussion about these matters by the Disciplinary Panel (as recorded in the note of the hearing) as amounting to reaching conclusions without an investigation.

[307]Professor Knopfel then went on to say that he believed that Professor Bangham’s failure amounted to “two counts of research misconduct (misrepresentation of facts in the context of research (mis)conduct and the cover-up of research misconduct of another person” and intimated that the Disciplinary Panel were colluding with this.

[308]He also referred to Professor Lightstone having said at the disciplinary hearing that the plagiarism allegations against him should have been upheld. This was a misunderstanding of what she was saying. Her point was simply that Professor Bangham’s report could be read as suggesting this and needed to be clarified.

[309]Professor Knopfel went on to say: “I believe that the documented conduct of a number of [the Respondent’s] employees are now well beyond issues as those covered by labour law. There is a strong and well-documented case of organised crime, including but not limited to fabrication of formal meeting records, manipulated witness statements, misrepresentations, organised "hate crime", blackmailing and coercion. This undermines the integrity, if not foundation for accreditation of [the Respondent] as a whole.” (2900)

[310]Ms Brankin responded to this letter on 27 September 2022 (2911 – 2912). In her reply, she reiterated that the Respondent had already determined and told him that the matters he was raising did not fall to be considered under its whistleblowing policy. She noted that the allegations had been investigated and rejected under the relevant policies. She rejected the assertion that Professor Bangham could have committed research misconduct saying, “There is also no basis for your claim that he can have committed research misconduct simply by conducting a fair and reasonable investigation in accordance with the College’s research misconduct procedures; an investigation which I might add resulted in the dismissal of all the allegations of research misconduct made against you.” (2912)

[311]She said in the letter, “If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the recent disciplinary process, or believe that there has been some form of procedural irregularity, if you have not already done so you should exercise your right of appeal as set out in the College’s disciplinary procedures and ordinances rather than sending unsubstantiated complaints to individual members of the disciplinary panel on a personal basis (an action which is completely inappropriate and unacceptable).” (2912) Disciplinary Conclusion Professor Knopfel Detriments 5.a.iv, 5.b.v, 5.c, 5.d.ii and 5.e.ii

[312]The Disciplinary Panel decided that Professor Knopfel should be dismissed with a payment in lieu of notice. Professor Lightstone wrote to him on 17 November 2022 to confirm this (2989 – 2999). His dismissal took effect on 30 November 2022.

[313]The lengthy letter that was sent confirming the outcome of the disciplinary process recounted the chronology of the disciplinary procedure from start to finish, dealing separately with the investigations by Professor NewmanTaylor and Professor Bangham. The letter documented the arguments put by both sides.

[314]Within the section on Professor Newman-Taylor’s report, Professor Lightstone made the following comments about the Claimants’ conduct at the disciplinary hearing on 10 March 2024. “The conduct of both of you was wholly inappropriate and often offensive. The tone and line of questioning from Dr Song was combative towards Professor Newman-Taylor and Mrs Langton. Dr Song even went so far as to question if Mrs Langton, as a Senior HR professional, had posted comments about you being a bully on social media. I felt this was a disgraceful allegation, particularly as you had been complaining all along about hearsay and suppositions and yet this was a gross example of such behaviour by Dr Song. Mrs Langton categorically denied that she had posted anything, and I was appalled at this suggestion by Dr Song and the manner in which the allegation was made. You alluded to Professor Newman-Taylor “colluding” with the three complainants in raising the allegations against you and accused him of manipulating the investigation. Despite the denial of Dr Song, you used an expletive in the presence of all parties namely saying, “I will not take this shit and now I am being fucking accused of something”. You mitigated your behaviour by saying this was due to your poor communication and English. You subsequently lied about this utterly inappropriate and offensive outburst when you categorically denied having sworn during the hearing.” (2993).

[315]Within the section on Professor Bangham’s report, the letter recorded that in Professor Knopfel’s response he had been “rude and dismissive of Professor Bangham's expertise, and [had] a very aggressive tone.” The letter noted that he had compared the investigation to "the holy inquisition". and said this was another example of “how not to deal with colleagues”. The letter also noted that Professor Knopfel had made multiple unproven allegations against Professor Matthews and observed “we find it remarkable that you object so strongly to apparently misleading allegations against yourself, but have no hesitation in smearing Professor Matthews, myself and others on multiple occasions in your responses.”

[316]The letter also contained the Disciplinary Panel’s findings. It said the Panel upheld Professor Newman-Taylor’s investigation and the allegations against Professor Knopfel therein in full. This finding was based on:• the panel having rejected all criticism of the veracity of the witnesses and of the integrity and competence of Professor Newman Taylor

• a consideration of all the documentation

• the evidence provided by Professor Newman-Taylor and Professor Matthews

• the failure by the Claimant to present his case in defence of the Professor Professor Newman-Taylor’s findings; and

• noting Professor Knopfel’s behaviour during the hearings. The following reasons were also given: “The panel were particularly appalled that at no time, during what became quite protracted proceedings, have you expressed the slightest concern for the individuals who raised the allegations against you. Whilst the Panel accepts you dispute the allegations, the complete lack of concern that anyone who works in your laboratory might feel so distressed, has been taken as further evidence that your behaviour is not aligned with Imperial Expectations of a senior professor in the College. We have noted a consistent pattern of behaviour: reported in previous investigations; in the current investigation; and witnessed in person during the first two hearings you attended; and from your written responses; that is consistent with a bullying approach to others that you work with, whether administrative staff, some people in your lab or those conducting work in good faith on behalf of the College.”

[317]With regard to the findings relating to Professor Charles Bangham's investigation, the letter recorded that he had found no evidence that Professor Knopfel had misappropriated or plagiarised Dr Bernal-Casas’ ideas. He had, however, concluded that Professor Knopfel had behaved in a discourteous and unprofessional manner towards him. The Disciplinary Panel upheld this latter allegation.

[318]Professor Lightstone recorded the outcome of the process as follows: “The findings relating to Professor Charles Bangham's investigation constitute a relatively serious failure of behaviour expected of a senior professor. Taken in isolation this would merit a written formal warning that further such failures could be expected to result in disciplinary sanctions. However, the upheld findings from Professor Newman Taylor's investigation are of a very serious nature indeed. They speak to a consistent pattern of behaviour that is wholly unacceptable from a senior professor in the College. Most importantly, they shed light on an inability, despite having undertaken training in difficult conversations and bullying (as you yourself insisted you had done following Professor Botto's investigation), to change your behaviour. To have 2 post docs and a student, all of whom you owed a duty of care not only for their scientific progress but for their wellbeing at work, feel they have no option but to leave our laboratory earlier than planned due to your bullying behaviour, is unacceptable, and in the view of the Panel, constitutes gross misconduct.”

[319]The letter confirmed that Professor Knopfel was entitled to appeal against the decision to dismiss him and explained what he should do if he wished to avail himself of this right. Dr Song’s Resignation

[320]By this time, Dr Song had resigned and left the Respondent. She had submitted her resignation on 17 October 2022 giving around a calendar month’s notice until 18 November 2022. She booked annual leave on 17 October 2022 up until her end date (2934 – 2936).

[321]The reasons she gave for resigning in her resignation letter were as follows: “You should be aware that I am resigning in response to repudiatory breach of contract by my employer and I therefore consider myself constructively dismissed. This conclusion was reached based on multiple accumulating events, including but not limited to the following: 1. The College ignored concerns I raised under Public Interest Disclosure (“Whistleblowing”) Ordinance D18 on 26th June 2021. The College President asked for an investigation under the Grievance procedure but the Grievance Investigating Officer Professor Ann Muggeridge claimed some concerns do not fall under the Grievance category and cannot be investigated under the Grievance procedure so consequently these concerns were categorically ignored in effect. 2. The Grievance investigation into my D18 Whistleblowing concerns have now taken more than one year and still to no conclusion despite my utmost commitment and numerous attempts to follow up. Such severe delay is not acceptable. 3. The Grievance investigation into my D18 Whistleblowing concerns followed unacceptable investigation conduct by HR Employee Relations including but not limited to meeting notes not be provided until eight months after the meeting took place. The meeting notes fall short of a fair and faithful representation of what was said during the meeting and involve edits that intend to discredit me. 4. I suffered collateral damage from an organised attack against our laboratory, where – without a single piece of supporting evidence – I was put under investigation for nine months for fabricated allegations that were proven to be documentarily false. The allegations against me could not be upheld but the Investigating Officer Professor Anthony Newman-Taylor then claimed my “behaviour” was “borderline” even though the Investigating Officer could not define or provide evidence for his claim. Further, the Investigating Officer conducted his investigation in breach of the College Ordinance, and more than one senior member of HR Employee Relations team formally claimed that the College Ordinance does not need to be followed during College procedures. Moreover, no actions were taken to rectify the maliciously fabricated documentarily false allegations. 5. Following providing my support as a work colleague representative during a disciplinary hearing, I was then threatened by a College Consul (the Chair of the said hearing) with unsubstantiated accusations against me. I formally raised my substantiated concerns on the inappropriate conduct of the Consul including but not limited to victimisation and harassment; these issues were ignored and not investigated. In addition, my line manager also formally informed the College more than once on my behalf that my work had been misappropriated amounting to research misconduct; it has now been one month since the most recent notice and the College still took no action hence it is now reasonable to conclude that the College will not act on concerns of research misconduct. Together with the above selected examples, these are sufficient to reach the conclusion that integrity, fairness and equal treatment cannot be expected from my employer so making my position at Imperial College London untenable and my working conditions intolerable, leaving me no option, but to resign in response as soon as possible without compromising my obligations.”

[322]In her witness statement she said that she resigned on 17 October 2022 because this was one month after Professor Knopfel had written to Steven Warren, but still no action had been taken. She considered her position had become “hopelessly unbearable”.

[323]Dr Song started new employment on 1 December 2022. The new employment was as the Lee Kuan Postdoctoral fellow at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

[324]Dr Song told us that she had applied for the research fellowship, a research position with grant funding for three years, in around January 2022. She found out that she was being offered it on 19 May 2022 and confirmed that she wished to accept it on 20 May 2022 (Additional Bundle (“AB”) 4).

[325]The documents disclosed by Dr Song did not address when or how Dr Song’s start date was agreed. We know that this had been resolved by 19 September 2022, because she was sent a Letter of Award on this date confirming that the initial grant would be for the duration 1 December 2022 to 30 November 2024 (AB 5)

[326]From at least as early as 6 September 2202, Dr Song was engaged in correspondence with Singapore University about the transfer of five experimental mice from the Respondent to Singapore. This led to the mice being transported on 17 October 2022, and arriving on 19 October 2022. In addition, she was involved in correspondence regarding the transfer of equipment from the Respondent to Singapore in September 2022 (1039 – 1040).

[327]Between 29 September and 6 October 2022, Dr Song emailed some contacts about a symposium being organised in Singapore in June 2023. She described herself in the email as. “a research fellow at Nanyang Technological University Singapore (currently working at Imperial College London, UK).” (1043 - 1049).

[328]On 8 November 2021, the Claimant emailed a potential future collaborator with a draft application for a grant for funding for some PhD students (AB 1050).

[329]The Claimant emailed her soon to be colleague Professor George Augustine on 17 November 2022 to inform him that she would be arriving in Singapore the following week (AB 1004). Professor Augustine had supported her application for the Fellowship and been delighted when she was awarded it (2). She confirmed to him that she had arrived in Singapore on 23 November 2022. Professor Knopfel’s Appeal Against Dismissal

[330]Professor Knopfel submitted an appeal against his dismissal on 1 December 2022 with various attachments (3054 - 3097). The Director of HR, Mr Brar acknowledged receipt the same day (3093)

[331]The task of organising the appeal was delegated by the Director of HR to Deputy Director Ms Ann Kelly. She contacted Professor Knopfel on 12 December 2022 to explain this, ask him if he had any unavailable dates and for the names of any witnesses he would want to call, if any. She advised him that he would be entitled to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union representative at the appeal meeting and asked for the name of his companion of he was exercising this right (3097)

[332]On 13 December 2022 Professor Knopfel replied to say that he had a busy schedule in the next 7 days and would be in Asia between 20 December and 15 January (3097)

[333]On 9 January 2023, Ms Kelly wrote to Ms Fernandez to ask her to liaise with the disciplinary panel and provide her with a written response to the appeal by 31 January 2023 (3181) Professor Lightstone prepared a detailed response (3185 – 3241).

[334]On 9 February 2023, an HR administrator wrote to Professor Knopfel (3183 – 3184) to inform him that the panel hearing his appeal against dismissal would be Professor Jonathan Weber, Dean for Faculty of Medicine, Professor Jonathan Mestel, Senior Consul and Deepak Khanna, member of College Council. She invited him to attend an in-person appeal hearing on 13 March 2023. The letter reiterated his right to be accompanied and repeated the questions that Ms Kelly’s earlier email had asked about being provided with the name of his chosen companion and any witnesses he wished to call.

[335]The letter noted: “It is important to note that this appeal hearing will not be a rehearing of the full case and therefore the panel will confine discussion to these specific areas rather than reconsider the whole matter afresh. The terms of reference for the appeal panel will be as follows:• To review whether the matter under consideration was adequately investigates and substantiated.

• To review whether the College’s procedures were correctly and fairly implemented.

• To consider whether the disciplinary action was reasonable in the circumstances known to management at the time of the disciplinary hearing.” (3184)

[336]Professor Knopfel replied on 12 February 2023 asking a series of questions about the process. He said he would like answers to the questions before he confirmed the details of his companion and witnesses. He indicated that he would endeavour to attend the meeting (3182).

[337]A further letter about the appeal was sent to him by Ms Kelly. The letter duplicated much of what he had been sent previously, but added that Professor Lightstone, would present the management case supported by Ms Fernandez and that Professor Lightstone was not intending to call any witnesses (3241-3242). She attached Professor Lightstone’s response to the appeal.

[338]On 4 March 2023 Professor Knopfel sent a large file of documents for consideration by the appeal panel using We Transfer (3244 and 3245 – 3323). He sent his comments on Professor Lightstone’s document to the appeal panel directly on 5 March 2023. He asked that the panel read the documents in advance of his attendance at the appeal hearing saying that he felt it would not be the best use of time of him to read the documents to the panel at the hearing (3326).

[339]Professor Mestel replied saying that if Professor Knopfel wanted the documents to be read by the panel he should send them through official channels to Ms Kelly. He agreed that it was not necessary for Professor Knopfel to read the documents out at the hearing as the panel would read the documents. He concluded saying: “As a scientist of distinction you will be aware that while the details of the data on which a thesis is formed and tested may be lengthy and complicated, the thesis itself can be summarised succinctly and communicated clearly by its proponent. It is of course up to you how you wish to present your case, but I hope you will be able to make the important arguments and overall picture clear. The details will be there in the supporting documents, for reference as appropriate and all will be considered by the Panel” (3325).

[340]Professor Knopfel complied with the requirement to send the documents to Ms Kelly.

[341]On 10 March 2023, Professor Knopfel wrote to the appeal panel and Ms Kelly to say that he was unable to attend the appeal hearing on 13 March 2023 for personal reasons related to his personal circumstances, rather than a lack of engagement. He said that he thought the hearing could take place in his absence and that he wished to rely on his written submissions (3329 - 3330).

[342]The appeal hearing took place on 13 March 2023 as planned in Professor Knopfel’s absence. It was attended by the appeal panel, Ms Kelly (as HR support) a note taker, Professor Lightstone and Ms Fernandez. Notes of the meeting were taken and were included in the bundle on pages 3345 – 3352. Professor Lightstone told the appeal panel that the disciplinary panel took the Professor Newman-Taylor’s investigation on trust.

[343]It is relevant for us to note the following questions and answers which are taken from the notes: “DK Do you feel his behaviour was rude and inappropriate? OF His behaviour to LL was appalling, for me as an observer I was shocked at his behaviour. He was challenging and disrespectful. He was appalling to my colleague ML. As an observer I was shocked by that type of behaviour….. JM Dr Chenchen Song (CS) seems to behave in a similar manner, was her presence detrimental to this case? LL She can articulate better. She was deeply unpleasant in the meetings. When she accused ML of putting something on social media about TK. She twisted things. I found her very disruptive and difficult but she did have a right to be there so we went through with it. JM CS suggested the allegation against ML and ML denied the allegation, did she mention it again? LL She said she did not accuse ML but in my view she did. It was an outrageous suggestion. They were not challenging the facts but the honesty and integrity of individuals. OF ML did not make any posting on social media and told them to raise a complaint with HR if they thought that was the case.” (3347)

[344]The appeal outcome letter was sent to Professor Knopfel by email on 29 March 2023 (3336 – 3342). The letter confirmed that his appeal had been rejected. Dr Song’s Grievance Appeal

[345]Dr Song submitted an appeal against the outcome to her grievance on 7 January 2023 (3371). She summarised why she was not satisfied with he grievance investigation in the following points: “1. My concerns were not fully considered and important components were not addressed. 2. The investigating officer ignored witness I named. 3. The investigating officer omitted material evidence I submitted. 4. The investigating officer failed to consider material evidence. 5. A document designed as meeting minutes contains numerous misrepresentations.”

[346]She added “The investigation report included criticisms against my personal character that is inappropriate and not acceptable (for instance that I should express remorse during making my complaint). Such criticisms is evidence of an absence of sound judgement, of efforts towards fairness and truthfulness, as well as lack of impartiality. Further, the investigation team failed to consider how their actions contributed to my resignation from the College, and at no point did the investigation team and the respondents involved (with the exception of Scott Wheatley) show any signs of understanding how their actions undermined the pledged values of Imperial College. It is disappointing how the various parties interviewed denied responsibilities and blamed each other. It is appalling that my best efforts to meet the animal welfare standards were made a mockery of by this investigation. This brings this case back to its original submission under the whistleblowing ordinance. The College and department governance fails to take overall responsibility and diverts any concerns to a culture of dishonesty and finger pointing. It is evidently the case that there are no internal mechanisms to resolve this, particularly in view of the fact that an essential component of my concerns was against the conduct of HR Employee Relations. External investigation is necessary if Imperial College has any intention to meet the expectations future students and staff have based on public information. Overall, the outcome of the investigation supports my reason and justification for my constructive dismissal.”

[347]Dr Song subsequently clarified that the witnesses she had named, but were not interviewed were Professor Knopfel and Dr Antonia Gould. She said that the material evidence that Professor Muggeridge had not taken into account were the documents submitted to her as email attachments during the investigation process (3369 – 3370).

[348]Professor Terry Tetley, Proconsul & Professor of Lung Cell Biology was appointed to consider the appeal with the support of Ms Kelly. Dr Song asked that the appeal be considered without an appeal meeting. She said that as what she had said at previous meetings had been repeatedly misrepresented she “was no longer able to engage with types of meeting in person.” (3366). She asked that Professor Tetley send her any questions he may have in writing.

[349]Professor Tetley reviewed the extensive grievance material and appeal and prepared a list of questions which was sent to Dr Song. She provided written responses to these, having sought an extension of time to do so (3373 – 3375). Her responses were considered by Professor Tetley who also met with Professor Muggeridge to discuss the appeal with her.

[350]Professor Tetley sent Dr Song a letter dated 24 July 2023 providing the outcome to her grievance appeal. The letter confirmed that her appeal was not upheld (3382 – 3388). Timings of Legal Claims

[351]Dr Song had initiated the early conciliation process on 14 January 2023. The early conciliation certificate was issued on 25 February 2023 and she presented her claim to the employment tribunal on 19 March 2023. She later applied to amend her claim to add some additional allegations. Her amendment application was made and granted on 23 June 2023. The legal complaints that were the subject of the amendment application are understood to be the ones contained in the paragraphs numbered 4.1.1.1 to 4.1.1.5.

[352]Professor Knopfel initiated the early conciliation process on 10 February 2023. The early conciliation certificate was issued on 24 March 2023 and he presented his claim to the employment tribunal on 16 April 2023 THE LAW Protected Disclosures

THE LAW

[353]According to section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), a “protected disclosure” means a qualifying disclosure (as defined by section 43B) which is made by a worker in accordance with any of sections 43C to 43H ERA.

[354]Section 43B(1) ERA says a “qualifying disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, is made in the public interest and tends to show one or more of the following—(a) that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,

(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or

(f) that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed.

[355]The type of miscarriage of justice referred to section 43B(1) is a miscarriage of justice occurring in the judicial system rather than internal disciplinary, grievance or similar processes of employers. Disclosure of Information – the Sufficiency Test

[356]There must be a disclosure of information. In Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld

[2010] IRLR 38

, the EAT held that to be protected a disclosure must involve the disclosure of information that shows a matter set out in section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and not simply voice a concern or raise an allegation.

[357]The Court of Appeal has subsequently cautioned tribunals against treating the categories of "information" and "allegation" as mutually exclusive in the case of Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth

[2018] EWCA Civ 1436

. At paragraphs 30 -31, Sales LJ says: “I agree with the fundamental point …….. that the concept of “information” as used in section 43B(1) is capable of covering statements which might also be characterised as allegations. …….Section 43B(1) should not be glossed to introduce into it a rigid dichotomy between “information” on the one hand and “allegations” on the other. …… On the other hand, although sometimes a statement which can be characterised as an allegation will also constitute “information” and amount to a qualifying disclosure within section 43B(1), not every statement involving an allegation will do so. Whether a particular allegation amounts to a qualifying disclosure under section 43B(1) will depend on whether it falls within the language used in that provision.”

[358]He goes on to say at paragraph 35: “In order for a statement or disclosure to be a qualifying disclosure according to this language, it has to have a sufficient factual content and specificity such as is capable of tending to show one of the matters listed in subsection [43B](1).” We refer to this in our conclusions as the sufficiency test.

[359]A disclosure may concern new information, in the sense that it involves telling a person something of which they were previously unaware, or it can involve drawing a person's attention to a matter of which they are already aware (section 43L(3), ERA 1996).

[360]It is important that we take into account what was said as a whole, rather than take a fragmented view of individual communications (Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw

2014 ICR 540

, EAT). Genuine and Reasonable Beliefs

[361]The requirement for reasonable belief requires the tribunal to identify first what the claimant genuinely believed and then to consider whether it was objectively reasonable for the Claimant to hold that belief. We must consider this question in light of the particular circumstances including the Claimant’s level of knowledge. (Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board

[2012] IRLR 4

, EAT).

[362]The test to be applied is whether a claimant reasonably believed(a) whether the information he disclosed showed a relevant failure had occurred, was occurring or was likely to occur and

(b) whether his or her disclosure was made in the public interest. The Claimant does not need to demonstrate that the relevant failure actually occurred, was occurring or was likely to occur or that the disclosure was in the public interest. Our focus is on the claimant’s beliefs. The reality is not entirely irrelevant, however, and can be taken into account when considering the objective reasonableness of a claimant’s belief (Darnton v University of Surrey 2003 [ICR] 615, EAT; Babula v Waltham Forest College

[2007] ICR 1026

, CA).

[363]The assessment should be made of the beliefs the claimant had at the time of making the disclosure and not with the benefit of hindsight (Jesudason v Alder Hey Children’s NHS trust

[2020] ICR 1226

). Public Interest Test

[364]The leading case dealing with when the public interest test is met is Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed & Anor

[2017] EWCA Civ 979

. The Court of Appeal confirmed that where a disclosure relates to a breach of a Claimant’s own contract of employment, or some other matter under where the interest in question is personal in character, there may nevertheless be features of the case that make it reasonable to regard the disclosure as being in the public interest as well as in the personal interest of the worker. Each case will depend on its own facts and context.

[365]Factors that may be helpful to consider include:(a) The numbers of people whose interests may be impacted by the disclosure;

(b) The nature and extent of the interests involved and the impact

(d) The identity of the alleged wrongdoer Claims Based on Protected Disclosures under the Employment Rights Act

[366]Section 47B ERA 1996 gives an employee the right not to be subjected to a detriment on the ground that he has made a protected disclosure.

[367]The term "detriment" is not defined in ERA 1996. The test for detriment in discrimination cases was formulated in the case of Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

[2003] UKHL 11

where it was said that it arises where a reasonable worker would or might take the view that they had, as a result of the treatment complained of, been disadvantaged in the circumstances in which they had to work. We have adopted that definition in this case.

[368]An claim pursued by an employee against their employer that they have been dismissed because they made a protected disclosure must be pursued as an automatic unfair dismissal claims under Section 103A ERA rather than as a claim for a detriment under section 47B. This is because of what is said in section 47B (2), as confirmed in the case of Wicked Vision v Rice

[2024] EAT 29

[369]Section 103A provides that “An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure”.

[370]In a detriment case under section 47B, the test is whether the employee’s protected disclosure materially influenced the treatment of the employee. The burden of proof is on the Claimant.

[371]Where the claim is one of dismissal under section 103A, the test is whether the protected disclosure was the principal reason for the employer’s decision to dismiss the claimant. This is a more onerous test. Again, the burden of proof is on the Claimant.

[372]The making of a protected disclosure and conduct associated with it or consequent upon making it are separable matters: Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd

[2022] IRLR 854

, CA. Unfair Dismissal

[373]The test for unfair dismissal is set out in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Under section 98(1), it is for the employer to show the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal, and that it is either a reason falling within subsection (2), e.g. conduct, or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.

[374]Under s98(4) ‘… the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.’

[375]Tribunals must consider the reasonableness of the dismissal in accordance with s98(4). However, tribunals have been given guidance by the EAT in British Home Stores v Burchell

[1978] IRLR 379

;

[1980] ICR 303

, EAT. There are three stages:(a) did the respondent genuinely believe the claimant was guilty of the alleged misconduct?

(b) did it hold that belief on reasonable grounds?

[376]Tribunals must bear in mind that whereas the burden of proving the reason for dismissal lies on the respondent, the second and third stages of Burchell are neutral as to burden of proof and the onus is not on the respondent (Boys and Girls Welfare Society v McDonald

[1996] IRLR 129

[1997] ICR 693

[377]Finally, tribunals must decide whether it was reasonable for the respondent to dismiss the claimant for that reason in all the circumstances of the case.

[378]We have reminded ourselves that our proper focus should be on the claimant’s conduct in totality and its impact on the sustainability of the employment relationship, rather than an examination of the different individual allegations of misconduct involved (Ham v the Governing Body of Bearwood Humanities College [

UKEAT/0397/13/MC

]

[379]We have also reminded ourselves that the question is whether dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. It is not for us to substitute our own decision.

[380]The range of reasonable responses test applies as much to the question of whether an investigation into suspected misconduct was reasonable in all the circumstances as it does to other procedural and substantive aspects of the decision to dismiss a person from his employment for a conduct reason. The objective standards of the reasonable employer must be applied to all aspects of the question whether an employee was fairly and reasonably dismissed. (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt

[2003] IRLR 23

, CA)

[381]When considering the question of the employer’s reasonableness, we must take into account the disciplinary process as a whole, including the appeal stage. (Taylor v OCS Group Limited

[2006] EWCA Civ 702

)

[382]In reaching their decision, we must also take into account the ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. By virtue of section 207 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Code is admissible in evidence and if any provision of the Code appears to the tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, it shall be taken into account in determining that question. A failure by any person to follow a provision of the Code does not however in itself render him liable to any proceedings. Constructive Unfair Dismissal

[383]Section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that an employee is taken to be dismissed by his employer if “the employee terminates the contract under which he is employed (with or without notice) in circumstances in which he is entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct”.

[384]It is established law that(i) conduct giving rise to a constructive dismissal must involve a fundamental breach of contract by the employer;

(ii) the breach must be an effective cause of the employee’s resignation; and (ii) the employee must not, by his or her conduct, have affirmed the contract before resigning (Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] Q.B. 761)

[385]The burden of proof lies with the Claimant to establish that, on the balance of probabilities, there has been a fundamental breach of contract.

[386]In this case the Claimant claims there was a breach of what is known as the implied term of trust and confidence. A breach of this implied term is necessarily a repudiatory breach of contract (Morrow v Safeway Stores

2002 IRLR 9

and Ahmed v Amnesty International

2009 ICR 1450

)

[387]The implied term of trust and confidence in full, as owed by the employer to an employer, is articulated as follows: “The employer shall not without reasonable and proper cause conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee”

[388]It is relevant to note that there are two limbs to it. When deciding whether or not it has been breached, we need to consider not simply whether there was conduct by the employer which destroyed trust and confidence, but also employer had reasonable and proper cause to act as it did.

[389]It is the impact of the employer’s behaviour, assessed objectively, on the employee that is significant - not the intention of the employer (Malik v BCCI

[1997] IRLR 462

). It is irrelevant that the employer does not intend to damage the relationship, if effect of the employer’s conduct, judged sensibly and reasonably, is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it (Woods – v- Car Services (Peterborough) Limited)

[1981] ICR 666

). The tribunal must make an objective and context specific assessment of the employer’s behaviour. The subjective view of a claimant, while relevant, is not determinative.

[390]Usually, in order to succeed in a claim of constructive unfair dismissal, an employee must act promptly in response to the employer’s conduct said to amount to a breach and resign within a reasonable period. If this is not done, the employee is treated as having waived the breach and affirmed the contact of employment.

[391]The breach of the implied obligation of trust and confidence can consist of a series of actions on the part of the employer which cumulatively amount to a breach of the term, though each individual incident may not do so. In such circumstances, known as “last straw” cases, the position in relation to affirmation of the contract is modified.

[392]In Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

2018 EWCA Civ 978

the Court of Appeal listed 5 questions that should be asked in order to determine whether an employee has been constructively dismissed in a “last straw” case:(a) What was the most recent act (or omission) on the part of the employer which the employee says cause, or triggered, his or her resignation? We note that in Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC [2005] ICR the Court of Appeal said that the last act may be relatively insignificant, but must not be utterly trivial.

(b) Has he or she affirmed the contract since that act?

(d) If not, was it nevertheless a part of a course of conduct comprising several acts and omissions which, viewed cumulatively, amounted to a (repudiatory) breach of the implied term of trust and confidence? (If it was, there is no need for any separate consideration of a possible previous affirmation)>

(e) Did the employee resign in response (or partly in response) to that breach? (Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle

[2004] EWCA Civ 859

[393]Where a tribunal finds that there is a dismissal within the terms of section 95(1)(c) we must consider what reason for the dismissal was.

[394]It is, somewhat artificial to require an employer who denies having dismissed an employee to show a reason for the dismissal. The Court of Appeal addressed this problem in Berriman –v- Delabole Slate Limited

1985 ICR 546

where the Court said that, in the case of a constructive dismissal, the reason for the dismissal is the reason for the employer’s breach of contract that caused the employee to resign. This is determined by analysis of the employer’s reasons for so acting, not the employee’s perception (Wyeth v Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust UK

EAT/061/15

[395]If the reason for dismissal was one of the automatic reasons, the claim of automatic unfair dismissal will succeed.

[396]If there is no automatic reason, we must consider whether the dismissal was fair or unfair within the terms of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act. In these circumstances it is for the employer to show what was the reason for the dismissal and whether that reason was a potentially fair reason for dismissal falling within section 98(1).

[397]Where there is a potentially fair reason for dismissal, we still need to consider overall fairness. In practice, what this means in a constructive dismissal case is that we should ask ourselves whether the employer’s reason for committing the fundamental breach of contract was sufficient to justify that breach, in the circumstances. Section 12 of the Employment Relations Act 1999

[398]Section 12 of the Employment Relations Act provides that a worker had the right not to be subjected to a detriment done on the ground that she has accompanied another worker to a disciplinary hearing. It also provides that a worker who is dismissed shall be regarded as automatically unfairly dismissed if the reason for the dismissal is having accompanied another worker to a disciplinary hearing. Time Limits

[399]The normal time limit for a claim of unfair dismissal (whether ordinary, automatic, direct or constructive) is found in subsection 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That section provides that a claim must be brought before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination of employment (as defined in section 97 of the same act). The three months is extended in accordance with the rules for early conciliation.

[400]The normal time limit for a claim that an employee has been subjected to a detriment under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 is found in section 48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996. That section says that the time limits is three months beginning with the date of alleged detriment. If the employee is alleging that there have been series of similar detriments, the three months is measured form the last of them. The three months is extended in accordance with the rules for early conciliation.

[401]The normal time limit for a claim that an employee has been subjected to a detriment under section 12 Employment Relations Act 1999 is also found in section 48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 and works in the same way.

[402]For all four types of claim, a tribunal may still consider a claim presented outside the normal time limit if it is satisfied that:(a) it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within the normal time limit; and

(b) the claimant has presented the claim within such further period as the tribunal considers is reasonable. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS PROFESSOR KNOPFEL’S CLAIMS Purported Protected Disclosures

[403]We first considered whether Professor Knopfel had made any protected disclosures. It was not in dispute that all of the communications he relied upon were sent to his employer and therefore the requirements in section 43C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were met. The issue we focused on was whether the communications amounted to qualifying protected disclosures as defined in section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. PD1: email of 24 September 2019 to Dr Chris Watkins that a “funder was charged for performance on a research grant while the Respondent obstructed performance on the grant by not releasing the budget required to perform the funded activity” Does this meet the sufficiency of information test?

[404]The email concerns a member of staff’s expenses claim. In the email, Professor Knopfel objects to the explanation that is given to her as to why they cannot be paid from the grant in question and to the suggestion that she identify another grant form which her expenses can be paid. Legal obligation and concealment of the same

[405]In the email Professor Knopfel says that the correct explanation that should have been given to the member of staff seeking her expenses was that Mr Saunders was waiting for the Respondent to act responsibly and in line with contractual obligations and agreements. This potentially suggests that the Respondent may have already acted in breach of those same contractual agreements and agreements, but could equally mean the opposite and be taken at face value.

[406]The email provides no information regarding which obligations may have or how they have been breached. The judgment of the Tribunal is therefore the content of the email does not meet the sufficiency of information test such that it contains sufficient factual content and specificity about any alleged breach of a legal obligation or that such a breach being concealed. Criminal Conduct and concealment of the same

[407]Professor Knopfel relies on his objection to the expenses being paid form another grant as a disclosure that shows a criminal offence is going to be committed. We disagree that the email says this. All Professor Knopfel actually says in the email is that this suggestion is inappropriate. He does not use language that suggests in any way this would be fraudulent. The email does not meet the sufficiency of information test on this basis.

[408]These is no information in the email that tends to show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur.

[409]Having decided that the email does not meet the sufficiency test, it was not necessary for us to consider the additional elements required for a protected qualifying disclosure. We have done so, however, in case our decision was held to be legally wrong on an appeal. This is the approach we have taken throughout this conclusions section in our judgment. criminal offence or concealment of he same?

[410]We find that Professor Knopfel did not genuinely believe that what Chris Sanders was suggesting was criminal. We consider he would have said something stronger had he genuinely thought this.

[411]If he did, it would not have been objectively reasonable for him to think this.

[412]It is common when dealing with accounts in many contexts to “borrow” from one source of income to pay something while waiting to receive funds. To do so does not indicate criminal intent as there is always an intention to pay the funds back. Such behaviour can carry risk depending on the certainty with which the delayed income is likely to be paid. In the specific case, however, Professor Knopfel was confident that the funds he was waiting for would be forthcoming eventually. His frustration was that the Respondent’s administrative staff had failed to do the things required to have them paid in a reasonable timeframe. breach of a legal obligation?

[413]We find that at the time Professor Knopfel sent the email he genuinely believe, that there had been significant administrative failures in the management of his grants. We also find that he suspected it was possible that legal obligations had been breached as a result, but he did not know the detail of this and was really just guessing at this possibility. He could not articulate this in any detail when giving evidence.

[414]When giving her evidence to the tribunal, Dr Song told us that one of the impacts of the administration’s failings was that the Respondent was in breach of legal agreements with other institutions. We note that no legal proceedings were ever issued, but it seems that it was reasonable for Professor Knopfel to believe that the Respondent was in breach of some legal obligations, albeit he did not know precisely what these were.

[415]We also do not find that at the time he sent the email Professor Knopfel genuinely believed that he was doing so in the public interest. He sent the email because he was frustrated about the delay in getting payment of the grant and the potential impact this was having on his team’s research. It is notable that in the email he calls for an investigation in the issues related to his grants rather than referring to having broader concerns about grants generally. His focus was on his own research being funded.

[416]We do not find that PD1 constituted a qualifying protected disclosure. PD2: email of 8 December 2020 to Mr John Neilson and Professor Nick Jennings “notifying two cases of research misconduct, namely plagiarism, and disclosure of confidential information and disclosure of confidential information by the Respondent’s employee”

[417]The judgment of the Tribunal is that the content of the email does meet the sufficiency test.

[418]Professor Knopfel accuses Dr Bernal-Casas of two things in the email.

[419]The first is an allegation of research misconduct. Professor Knopfel provides says that the grant application provided by Dr Bernal-Casas contains figures and ideas that were provided to him by members of Professor Knopfel’s and which were used by Dr Bernal-Casas without acknowledging the sources. Although he does not provide any more information than this, we consider this is sufficient.

[420]Professor Knopfel does not, however, expressly accuse Dr Bernal-Casas of breaching a legal obligation. We did not think it was necessary for him to do so. His use of the term research misconduct implies that someone’s intellectual property rights have been infringed which would amount to a breach of a legal obligation.

[421]The second allegation in the email is much more clearly expressed. Professor Knopfel provides information in the email that tends to show that there has been a breach of confidentiality. He says material that was confidential to the internal review bodies was shared with Dr Bernal-Casas. Again he does not expressly accuse anyone of breaching a legal obligation, but this is clearly implied.

[422]In our judgment there is no information in the email that tends to show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur. It is possible to interpret Professor Knopfel’s email as suggesting that an injustice will be done to him, if he is found guilty of research misconduct, but we do not consider this type of injustice is the type of miscarriage of justice that is envisaged in section 43B(1)(c).

[423]We have considered each allegation separately.

[424]As noted in our section on the facts, allegation of research misconduct made by Professor Knopfel against Dr Bernal-Casas became apparent later. The allegation was that Dr Bernal-Casas was committing research misconduct through the very act of sending the grant application (which contained Professor Knopfel and others’ work) to Mr Hancock as evidence for his complaint. In doing so, according to Professor Knopfel, Dr Bernal-Casas was using the work of others for his own benefit without their permission.

[425]In our judgment this was an absurd allegation to make. All that Dr BernalCasas had done was to send Mr Hancock a copy of the grant application as evidence of research misconduct which Dr Bernal-Casas genuinely believed, albeit inaccurately, had taken place.

[426]We find that Professor Knopfel (and later Dr Song as she made a similar allegation) did genuinely believe Dr Bernal-Casas’s action fell within the strict definition of research misconduct in the Respondent’s policy, but in our view this cannot have amounted to a genuine belief that Dr Bernal-Casas was guilty of a breach of any legal obligation. Professor Knopfel deliberately quoted the internal definition of research misconduct to make his point that that was what he was using. If this was Professor Knopfel’s genuine belief, it certainly was not a reasonable one. It could not possibly be unlawful to use evidence in one’s own possession to support a complaint.

[427]We find that Professor Knopfel’s belief that there had been a breach of confidentiality was both a genuine and reasonable one for Professor Knopfel to hold at this time.

[428]This was before any investigation had been undertaken. It did appear, on the face of it, at this stage, that someone had provided Dr Bernal – Casas with confidential information about grant applications that Professor Knopfel had made. As it turned out, there had been no breach of confidentiality and Dr Bernal-Casas’ information was based on what Dr Knopfel had told him himself and speculation on his part. It was not unreasonable for Dr Knopfel to think otherwise at this stage, however, although the language he used in the email, speaking of plotting false accusations was extreme. miscarriage of justice or concealment of the same?

[429]Professor Knopfel may have believed that the information showed a possible future miscarriage of justice, but as his email only concerned an internal process, this was not a reasonable belief.

[430]We do not find that Professor Knopfel either genuinely or reasonably believed he was making a disclosure in the public interest. The email was sent in order to defend his position against the complaint of research misconduct that had been made against him and to make counter allegations.

[431]We do not find that PD2 constituted a qualifying protected disclosure. PD3: email of 8 March 2021 to the President, Provost, Director of HR, and Mr Neilson: “notifying the fabrication of false representations and orchestration of a smear campaign by academic leaders of Imperial College’s Faculty of Medicine”

[432]We note that the Respondent invited us to find the sufficiency test was not met for this purported disclosure on the basis that the format in which Professor Knopfel purported to make it meant it was impossible to understand. While we agree that it was not easy to understand, we do not agree it was impossible, particularly if read with his PD2. We are if course obliged not to look at disclosures in isolation, but in context.

[433]We have worked out that the document contains four central allegations, as set out below and we have therefore considered these.• that the research misconduct investigation was based on a false representation, namely that Professor Knopfel had been successfully awarded a grant by the MRC

• to repeat in the report that he had been awarded the grant was harassment and a malicious denunciation

• he had not been given an opportunity to respond to the allegation that it was discourteous not to have told Dr Bernal-Casas that he intended to make a grant application without him during the investigation

• that someone must have shared confidential information about Professor Knopfel’s grant application with Dr Bernal-Casas.

[434]The judgment of the Tribunal Panel is that Professor Knopfel does not adequately explain in what way the first three allegations amount to a breach of a legal obligation. The sufficiency of information test is not met in relation to them. In order for us to have made a different decision, we would have needed Professor Knopfel to tell us more about the legal obligations he considered were being breached. We have not been able to work it out based on the language he chose to use.

[435]We do however, find that what he says about there having been a breach of confidentiality meets the sufficiency of information test.

[436]In our judgment there is no information in the email that tends to show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur. It is possible to interpret Professor Knopfel’s email as suggesting that an injustice has been done to him, but as noted above, we do not consider this type of injustice is the type of miscarriage of justice that is envisaged in section 43B(1)(c).

[437]We find that Professor Knopfel did genuinely believe that the information he was disclosing showed a breach of a legal obligation. Even though his document lack sufficient information about the legal obligations being breached, it was written in language which suggested he considered something very serious was amiss,

[438]We consider it was not reasonable for Professor Knofel to have this belief, however. Professor Knopfel sent his email before Professor Bangahm’s report had been corrected to acknowledge that the grant application he had made had not been successful. We note therefore that at the time of sending the email, Professor Bangham had not conceded he had made a factual error and Professor Knopfel was entitled to be upset about the inaccurate information. Nevertheless, we consider that at this stage it was unreasonable for Professor Knopfel to jump to the conclusion that a deliberate error had been made and more significantly that there was a malicious smear campaign being organised against him with criminal energy given that he had been cleared of research misconduct.

[439]In addition, by this time, the allegation of breach of confidentiality had been investigated and Professor Knopfel had been told that Dr Bernal-Casas had confirmed in writing that he had not been a party to any confidential information. He had also had the opportunity to go over his email correspondence with Dr Bernal-Casas from which it would have been evident that the information provided by Dr Bernal-Casas was based on what Professor Knopfel himself had told him and speculation. Rather than reflect upon the situation with an open mind, he became fixated on his believe that he was the victim of a character assignation (his words) and ceased to be able to consider the matter objectively. miscarriage of justice?

[440]Professor Knopfel may have believed that the information showed a

[441]Although Professor Knopfel asked that his email and attachment be dealt with under the Respondent’s whistleblowing policy, we do not find that he genuinely believed at the time that he was making the disclosure in the public interest.

[442]We have reached this decision because Professor Knopfel explained why he was seeking to raise the matter under the whistleblowing policy in the subsequent emails he exchanged with the College Secretary. He effectively said he was pursuing this option because he thought the whistleblowing procedure offered an appeal mechanism and that raising the matter under that policy would afford him protection. This demonstrates that he was only concerned with his own position and not the wider implications as he later claimed.

[443]We do not find that PD3 constituted a qualifying protected disclosure. PD4: email of 8 October 2021 to Professor Liz Lightstone and others sending a letter from Aileen McColgan KC on behalf of the claimant “outlining the flaws of the grievance and research misconduct Investigations.

[444]The letter written on behalf of the Claimant by an experienced employment lawyer contains information about the current disciplinary process and how it was considered to be flawed. Although the writer does not expressly say that these flaws create a breach of a legal obligation, the clear implication is that Professor Knopfel’s rights under employment law are being breached. We consider the sufficiency test is met.

[445]We consider it is possible to interpret the email as suggesting that an injustice is occurring, but as before we do not consider this type of injustice is the type of miscarriage of justice that is envisaged in section 43B(1)(c).

[446]We find that Professor Knopfel genuinely believed that the letter from his barrister was exposing breaches of legal obligations that his employer was committing in relation to the disciplinary procedure. This was a reasonable belief for him to have at this stage in light of the robustness of the points made in the letter.

[447]We do not know what associated legal advice he received. We would have expected his lawyer to qualify some of what she said in the letter when discussing the matter with him, but this does not change our overall view. As a regulated professional the lawyer would not have felt comfortable making the points she made if she did not consider they could be substantiated based on what she had seen at that stage. breach of miscarriage of justice or concealment of the same

[448]Professor Knopfel may have believed that the information showed a

[449]We find that Professor Knopfel did not believe at the time that the letter contained information which he was disclosing in the public interest. Instead he understood that the letter contained information about his own personal situation and was written in his interests, on his instructions, to protect his position. Given that the author of the letter is a specialist employment law, had there been any intention for the letter to be treated as a protected disclosure we consider it would have stated this expressly. The letter says nothing that points to the concerns being raised in the wider public interest.

[450]If we are wrong and Professor Knopfel did believe the letter was sent in the public interest at the time, this belief was unreasonable in the circumstances.

[451]We find that PD4 did not constitute a qualifying protected disclosure. PD5: email of 18 September 2022 to Professor Steven Warren substantiating the allegation that Dr David Bernal-Casas’s claims that C’s and Dr Song’s work was “his ideas, text and figures” constituted research misconduct, and that research misconduct was being covered up.

[452]The Respondent’s written submissions in relation to this purported protected disclosure simply say, “This appears to be a rehash of [Professor Knofel’s] PD2 and PD3, albeit in even more opaque terms.” We are inclined to agree with this observation. It is difficult to understand what Professor Knopfel is saying in the email, but we believe we have been able to understand it.

[453]In the email, Professor Knopfel reiterates the allegations he made in PD2 and PD3 that Dr Bernal-Casas had himself committed research misconduct and that someone internal had shared confidential information with him. He says, based on what Professor Bangham told the Disciplinary Panel, that it is obvious he (Professor Bangham) never had any intention of properly investigating these concerns and accuses Professor Bangham himself of research misconduct

[454]Professor Knopfel expressly says that the Respondent’s employees have breached employment law, but also goes further than this and describes the situation as constituting “organised crime.”

[455]The judgment of the Tribunal Panel is that Professor Knopfel does provide sufficient information in the email to meet the sufficiency of information test. This is based on our previous conclusions that his references to the terms research misconduct and breach of confidentiality imply a breach of a legal obligation. In this email he goes further and says that there is a breach of employment and criminal law. He is aware that the person he has sent the email to understands the allegations he has made previously and so he does not need to explain them by providing the full detail.

[456]Professor Knopfel’s email says very clearly that an injustice has been and is being done to him, but we do not consider this type of injustice is the type of miscarriage of justice that is envisaged in section 43B(1)(c).

[457]We find that Professor Knopfel did believe that the information he was disclosing showed a breach of a legal obligation. He says as such in the email. However, we consider it entirely unreasonable for him to have this belief. We have earlier dealt separately with whether it was reasonable for Professor Knopfel to continue to believe that Dr Bernal-Casas had breached any legal obligations by supporting his complaint of research misconduct by providing a copy of a grant application that contained Professor Knopfel and others’ work and concluded it was not. We have also earlier concluded that it was not reasonable for him at this stage, to continue to believe that there had been a breach of confidentiality.

[458]The conclusions Professor Knopfel reached about Professor Bangham, based on his reading of the notes of the disciplinary hearing, are extreme. miscarriage of justice?

[459]Professor Knopfel may have believed that the information showed a

[460]We do not find that Professor Knopfel genuinely believed at the time that he sent his email that he was making the disclosure in the public interest. We find that it was a last gasp attempt at persuading Professor Warren, the other member of the Disciplinary Panel that Professor Bangham’s evidence to the Disciplinary Panel was unreliable. Although he copied others in, we find he was only concerned with his own position and not the wider implications as he later claimed.

[461]We find that PD5 does not constitute a qualifying protected interest disclosure. Professor Knopfel’s Section 47B Detriments

[462]Having found that none of Professor Knopfel’s purported protected disclosures meet the legal test for a protected disclosure, it was not necessary for us to consider the purported section 47 detriments. We did, however, in case he successfully appeals our decision on the disclosures. In connection with each one, we considered:• whether what Professor Knopfel alleged actually occurred from a factual persctive;

• why the Respondent acted as it did;

• whether there was a detriment to Professor Knopfel. Detriments said to arise from PD1 Dr Watkins’ email of 24 September 2019, by which he said that the phrase “gross administrative negligence” was not appropriate; and “this could be construed as a serious allegation against a member of staff and could potentially have repercussions” (Issue 5.a.i.)

[463]Professor Knopfel told us that he interpreted what Dr Watkins said in his email of 24 September 2019 as a threat to himself. He thought the serious repercussions referred to in the email could be taken against him. This was not a reasonable interpretation of what Dr Watkins said.

[464]Our finding is that what Dr Watkins clearly said was that Dr Knopfel’s reference to gross administrative negligence could be construed as a serious allegation against Mr Sanders that could potentially have repercussions for Mr Sanders. There was no threat of any repercussions to

[465]This allegation of detriment therefore fails on its facts as there was no threat of repercussions to Professor Knopfel nor any detriment to him. Prof Matthews’ statement of 5 February 2021, in which he said: “…, TK alleged mishandling of NIH funds by the college in a long email exchange in which TK repeatedly used inappropriate language and made claims that ultimately were not upheld by independent College administrative review. In addition, without evidence, TK sent emails claiming fraudulent practices by members of College administrative staff regarding related issues to NIH (USA), the funders. This went on around the time of August 2016 and April 2020. Professor Matthews noted that Scott Wheatley (SW – Head of Grants), Anna McCloud (Professor Muggeridge) and Ann Kelly (AK – Head of Employee Relations) all were made aware of these problems or involved in the internal review.” (Issue 5.a.ii.)

[466]On 5 February 2021, Professor Matthews was interviewed by Professor Newman-Taylor as part of the investigation into the complaint made by the complainants about Professor Knopfel and Dr Song. In the course of that interview Professor Matthews was asked more broadly about Professor Knopfel’s history in the department. In response to this question, Professor provided a large amount of information to Professor Newman-Taylor. This included telling him that he had seen emails that the Claimant had written to administrative staff that he construed as bullying, denigrating or at best sarcastic. The quoted remarks above are two of the examples given by Professor Matthews to Professor Newman-Taylor. This allegation is made out on its facts.

[467]We find that Professor Matthews did not raise these matters as a form of retribution in response to the specific email the Claimant sent to Dr Chris Watkins on 24 September 2019, nor was her otherwise materially influenced by it. Professor Matthews clearly had that email in mind when speaking to Professor Newman-Taylor, as it was one that he had been copied into. However, he had been copied in to several emails which had caused him concern over a lengthy period of time. His comments were made 18 months after the email above was sent and were of a more general nature about the tone used by Professor Knopfel in his emails with administrators.

[468]Having seen the emails in question and the language used by Professor Knopfel, we consider that Professor Matthews was right to raise this as an issue that required investigation.

[469]As an important aside, we do not consider that being accused of an allegation where you given a full opportunity to defend yourself, can amount to a detriment in principle. This might arise on occasion, such as when the allegation is made without any foundation or relates only to a very trivial matter. In saying this, we acknowledge that being taken though a disciplinary process and having to defend one’s self is inevitably stressful and time consuming. However, we consider a worker cannot reasonably consider themselves to be disadvantaged by this happening where there is reasonable evidence of potential misconduct.

[470]In our view Professor Knopfel’s case falls into the scenario where it is appropriate for an investigation to be undertaken. After the claimant expressed that he felt bullied and harassed by administration regarding the financial and fund management matters, the claimant was accused of bullying administrative staff. (Issue 5.a.iii.)

[471]Professor Knopfel was accused of bullying administrative staff. Specifically, the allegation that he had to answer as a disciplinary charge was that his behaviour towards administrative staff fell short of what expected and was contrary to the Respondent’s Harassment, Bullying and Victimisation Policy.

[472]This allegation was made against Professor Knopfel because Professor Matthews had told Professor Neman-Taylor that he had seen emails from Professor Knopfel to members of administrative staff which caused him concern. Professor Newman-Taylor explored this during his investigation, by way of possible contextual evidence, to help him decided if Professor Knopfel had bullied Dr Eicklebeck, Dr Karapinar and Mr Sintes. This was then turned into a separate allegation at disciplinary stage.

[473]The reason the accusation was made against Professor Knopfel was because of the evidence uncovered during the investigation. The charge was not fabricated in retribution for the Claimant’s email sent to Dr Chris Watkins on 24 September 2019 two years earlier, well before Professor Newman-Taylor’s investigation was concluded, nor was the charge otherwise materially influenced by the email.

[474]We repeat our comments above that we do not consider the making of the allegations by themselves can have been to Professor Knopfel’s detriment. The claimant’s concerns regarding financial irregularity were considered as bullying behaviour and used as key evidence in a justification for the Claimant’s dismissal (in the dismissal letter issued on 17 November 2022). (Issue 5.a.iv.)

[475]We note the Respondent’s submissions that this matter should be treated 1999. This is because it is said that this a matter relating to his dismissal rather than a separate detriment. We agree with this legal submission.

[476]In any event, from a factual perspective, the Claimant’s email of 24 September 2019 was not considered as key evidence to justify his dismissal. It was not one of the emails that had been provided to Professor NewmanTaylor. He did not interview either Mr Sanders or Dr Watkins as part of his investigation. He relied instead on evidence provided by Ms Gould and Ms Tharpe. If the Claimant’s email of 24 September 2019 was a protected disclosure, it did not influence either Professor Newman-Taylor nor the Disciplinary Panel. Detriments said to arise from PD2 Mr Neilson failing to investigate an allegation of dissemination of confidential information after 8 January 2021 (Issue 5.b.i.)

[477]It is not factually correct that Professor Knopfel’s allegation of breach of confidentiality was not investigated.

[478]It made logical sense to wait until after the research misconduct screening investigation was concluded to decide what to do about the alleged breach of confidentiality. This gave Professor Bangham the opportunity to explore with Dr Bernal-Casas how he and why he believed that Professor Knopfel had made a successful application grant application to the MRC using his IPR and whether he had been provided with confidential information.

[479]Having explored this issue, Professor Bangham reported that Dr BernalCasas had confirmed in writing that he had not got his information from anyone internal to the Respondent. It was also apparent that his allegation was based on misinformed speculation and the content of emails from Professor Knopfel to him. We consider this was sufficient investigation and it was not necessary to undertake any further investigations. This complaint of detriment therefore fails on its facts. By emails of 15 December 2021 and 8 January 2021, Mr Neilson investigating research misconduct as part of an investigation into Professor Knopfel, depriving Professor Knopfel from right to appeal as to R’s procedures. (Issue 5.b.ii.)

[480]This allegation is that Professor Knopfel was deprived of a right of appeal because the research misconduct screening investigation covered both the complaint he made and the complaint against him.

[481]In our judgment, it was entirely sensible, given the nature of the allegations, to have a single investigation into both allegations of research misconduct. It was also not this that deprived Professor Knopfel of any right to appeal. It was simply that the research misconduct investigation procedure did not include a right of appeal.

[482]The allegation of research misconduct made by Professor Knopfel against Dr Bernal-Casas, as we have noted above, was an absurd allegation. The fact that there was no opportunity to appeal against the decision not to uphold his allegation cannot therefore have resulted in any detriment to Mr Neilson initially agreed in email dated 8 January 2021 that there will be an investigation on the external dissemination of confidential internal information as well as research funding disinformation to Dr David Bernal- Casas, after Professor Bangham’s investigation had been completed, but no such investigation took place. (Issue 5.b.iii.)

[483]We refer to the finding made above. There was an investigation into Professor Knopfel’s allegation that there had been a breach of confidentiality. This allegation fails on the facts. On 18 July 2022, the chair of the disciplinary hearing panel (Prof Liz Lightstone) suggesting that the claimant “misappropriated the work of Dr Bernal-Casas” despite the allegation having already been investigated and dismissed (Issue 5.b.iv.)

[484]We note the Respondent’s submissions that this matter should be treated 1999 as it is a matter relating to his dismissal. We disagree with this submission at this was a comment made in a disciplinary hearing rather part of the reasoning for dismissal contained in the dismissal letter.

[485]As noted in our findings of facts, Professor Lightstone did question Professor Bangham’s findings that Professor Knopfel had not plagiarised Dr BernalCasas’ work during the disciplinary hearing that took place on 18 July 2022. This was part of a minuted discussion in which she was seeking to understand Professor Bangham’s investigation report and the timeline. The position was clarified for her during the discussion.

[486]The dismissal letter confirmed the conclusions that the Disciplinary Panel reached on this point, which was that there had been no misappropriation of the work of Dr Bernal-Casas by Professor Knopfel. There was no therefore no detriment to Professor Knopfel arising from this comment. Professor Liz Lightstone stating in a dismissal letter on 17 November 2022 that C’s request for an investigation into his concerns represents his inappropriate behaviour and using that as justification for dismissal (Issue 5.b.v)

[487]We note the Respondent’s submissions that this matter should be treated 1999 as it is a matter relating to his dismissal. We agree with this legal

[488]In any event, from a factual perspective, in the disciplinary outcome letter, Professor Lightstone did not say that Professor Knopfel’s request for an investigation had been inappropriate. She merely noted, without comment, that Professor Knopfel had made a counter allegation of research misconduct against Dr Bernal-Casas and raised a concern about breach of confidentiality, both of which had been considered and rejected. This was noted simply because it was part of the factual context without comment bny Professor Lightstone.

[489]In his written closing submissions, Professor Knopfel invited us to find that the use of the language “counter allegation” demonised him as an unreasonable aggressive person who indulges in counter-complaints. We do not consider this argument bears scrutiny in relation to the part of the disciplinary letter highlighted. Professor Lightstone heavily criticises Professor Knopfel elsewhere in the letter, but not in this comment. Detriments said to arise from PD3: The Research Misconduct Response Group ignoring C’s statements in PD3, namely that: 1. confidential internal information was leaked to external party; 2. the Investigator Professor Charles Bangham misrepresented the situation by claiming that the claimant had been successful in obtaining research funding which Dr David Bernal-Casas could have profited from, despite the claimant’s repeated clarifications that no such funding existed (Issue 5.c.i.)

[490]As noted above, the RMRG did not ignore Professor Knopfel’s allegation that confidential information had been leaked to Dr Bernal-Casas. This allegation was investigated.

[491]Professor’s Bangham’s draft report did initially say that Professor Knopfel’s grant application to the MRC had been successful. He amended this in the final report.

[492]Professor Bangham did not say anything about the extent to which that Dr Bernal-Casas could have profited from the funding. His findings were clear that the grant application did not include any contribution by Dr BernalCasas. Professor Bangham’s criticism of Professor Knopfel was the lack of courtesy that he had shown Dr Bernal-Casas. He did not suggest that Professor Knopfel should have included him, but that it was discourteous for him not to do so without being fully transparent with him.

[493]We do not consider these allegations to be proven on the facts or that there was any genuine detriment to Professor Knopfel because of Professor Bangham’s initial mistake. He corrected it very quickly. Mr John Hancock writing to Dr David Bernal-Casas (on 19 March 2021) repeating the factually incorrect claim that the claimant had received funding from UK Medical Research Council and expressed their regret that they have no mechanisms to help Dr Bernal-Casas benefiting from the claimant’s research grant. This led to Dr David Bernal-Casas subsequently complaining against the claimant to the UK Medical Research Council, damaging the claimant’s reputation 5.c.ii

[494]Mr Hancock did say, in his outcome letter to Dr Bernal-Casas, that the grant had been awarded, when it had not. This was a mistake that he later corrected.

[495]We do not find that this mistake is what led Dr Bernal-Casas to make a complaint to the MRC directly. We consider he was likely to complain in any event. However, even if it did contribute, the complaint was closed down straight away by the MRC. Mr Hancock corrected the mistake when he realised he had made it and provided a robust defence of Professor Knopfel when the MRC asked him to comment. We therefore consider that there was no reputational damage and therefore detriment to the Claimant.

[496]Mr Hancock did apologise that the outcome of the screening investigation did not deliver the restitution that Dr Bernal-Casas was seeking. This was not him saying that anyone at the Respondent considered Dr Bernal-Casas ought to have been part of the grant application or should have received funding. He was simply explaining, in what he felt was diplomatic language, that Dr Bernal-Casas was not going to get what he felt he had been seeking.

[497]We do not consider this allegation to be proven on the facts or that there was any genuine detriment to the Claimant because of Mr Hancock’s mistake or the language he used when writing to Dr Bernal-Casas. On 17 March 2021, Mr Hancock informing Professor Jonathan Weber that there would be a disciplinary hearing against C, which letter contained “disinformation”, namely that the claimant had received funding that Dr David Bernal-Casas could have profited from, and that Dr David Bernal- Casas held intellectual property rights over the claimant’s laboratory’s work and ideas (5.c.iii.)

[498]The same mistake regarding the success of the grant application was made in the letter written to Professor Webber, Head of the Faculty of Medicine. The letter did not, however, say that the Claimant had received funding that Dr Bernal-Casas could have profited from or that Dr Bernal-Casas held any intellectual property rights over the Claimant’s laboratory work. The letter also did not say that there would be a disciplinary hearing against Professor Knopfel. Instead, the letter simply said that the matter of Professor Knopfel’s professional discourtesy to Dr Bernal-casas would be considered as part of a current disciplinary investigation. This was accurate and Professor Webber was entitled to know this, as Head of the Faculty of Medicine.

[499]We do not consider this allegation to be proven on the facts or that there was any genuine detriment to the Claimant by reason of Mr Hancock’s mistake. On 1 October 2021, as part of the materials for the Disciplinary hearing, a revised version of Professor Charles Bangham investigation outcome letter was provided to the claimant. Untrue claims were retained despite the claimant’s complaints, and the investigation conclusion was topped-up with a formal allegation of misconduct (5.c.iv.)

[500]For some reason, not clear to us, Professor Knopfel formed the view that Professor Bangham’s report was changed for the purposes of the Disciplinary Process and the allegation of profession discourtesy had been added to it. This was not the case. The allegation was included in the version that was sent to Professor Knopfel on 1 March 2021. The only change that Professor Bangham made to that original draft was to correct the mistake about the successful grant. This allegation therefore fails on its facts. Professor Liz Lightstone stating during the disciplinary hearing session on 18 July 2022 that C had misappropriated work of others without consideration of the factual evidence, and claiming in the disciplinary hearing outcome letter (17 November 2022) that the claimant’s resistance to factually demonstrably false allegations as lack of remorse (5.c.v.)

[501]The first part of this alleged detriment is a repetition of the allegation at issue 5.b.iv. which we have already dismissed.

[502]We note the Respondent’s submissions that the second part of this alleged detriment should be treated as an excluded detriment because of the operation of section 47B(2) ERA 1999 as it is a matter relating to his dismissal. We agree with this legal submission, but the allegation fails in any event.

[503]The dismissal letter did not refer to a lack of remorse being shown by Professor Knopfel. It referred instead to Professor Knopfel’s failure to express any concern for the complainants. These are different things.

[504]It was correct that Professor Knopfel’s failure to express any concern for the complainants was taken into account by the Disciplinary Panel when reaching the conclusion that Professor Knopfel’s behaviour did not align with the Respondent’s expectations. It was also correct that Profssor Knopfel did not show any concern for the complainants during the disciplinary process. The closest he got to this was acknowledging that they may be genuinely distressed and offering that the alternative reason for this was because of their work. However, it was not clear that he even accepted this.

[505]In taking this into account, the Disciplinary Panel explained that even though Professor Knopfel was disputing the bullying allegations, they would have expected him at least to show concern that the complainants felt distressed enough to want to leave the laboratory. This was different from being remorseful and admitting he was responsible. Instead, rather than undertake any self reflection or show concern, Professor Knopfel simply attacked the complainants as raising false allegations.

[506]The Disciplinary Panel reached this finding because it was part of the evidence before them. It was not because of anything Professor Knopfel had written in the document he relies on as PD3. That document was about the research misconduct matter, whereas the comments about a lack of concern were made in connection with bullying complaints made by the complainants. Detriments said to arise from PD4: Denying C a “fair hearing” by the Respondent – acting through Ann Kelly on 15 October 2021 – . she ignored PD4. She should have held a proper investigation into the matters raised in PD4 before proceeding with the disciplinary hearing but failed to do so, denying the claimant a fair investigation into the allegations raised against the claimant (Issue 5.d.i)

[507]The Respondent did not ignore the matters raised in the letter by the Professor Knopfel’s barrister. The letter from Ms Kelly was a direct response to those matters. It explained that the Respondent did not agree to Professor Knopfel’s request for an independent investigation and gave a reason why. It also explained Professor Knopfel could raise concerns about the investigations that had taken place as part of the disciplinary process. Finally, the disciplinary hearing was postponed to allow Professor Knopfel more preparation time as a result of the concerns raised in the letter.

[508]The Respondent did not reject the call for a further investigation in retaliation for Professor Knopfel asking for one via his barrister or because of any of the other points made in her letter. The Respondent’s position was that the allegations against the Claimant had already been investigated. It was not convinced by the arguments made by Professor Knopfel’s barrister that the investigations were so flawed that they should be undertaken afresh.

[509]We do not consider there was any detriment to the Professor Knopfel arising from this decision. It did not prevent the possibility of further investigation by the disciplinary panel, if it felt this was required. The Respondent – acting through Professor Liz Lightstone in her dismissal outcome letter issued on 17 November 2022 – citing the request for a fair investigation (with specific reference to this PD letter) as a lack of cooperation and inappropriate behaviour to justify dismissal (Issue 5.d.ii)

[510]We note the Respondent’s submissions that this matter should be treated 1999 as it is a matter relating to his dismissal. We agree with this

[511]In any event, this allegation is based on Professor Knopfel’s misunderstanding of the structure of the dismissal letter. The dismissal letter records that the Respondent received the letter from Professor Knopfel’s barrister, but this is simply in the section where the chronology of events is recounted. Professor Knopfel is not criticised in any way for having instructed a barrister to write the letter. This allegation therefore fails on its facts in any event. Detriments said to arise from PD5: Ms Brankin wrote to the claimant on 27 September 2022 stating that his “PD5” was “inappropriate and not acceptable” (Issue 5.e.i)

[512]Ms Brankin did use the term “inappropriate and not acceptable” in her response to Professor Knopfel’s PD5 sent on 27 September 2022. What she said was inappropriate and not acceptable was the fact that Professor Knopfel had sent the letter to Professor Warren, an individual member of the Disciplinary Panel, rather than raising the issues through the correct process. She also rejected the substance of PD5, but did not criticise Professor Knopfel for raising the matter.

[513]It was perfectly reasonable for Ms Brankin to point out that Professor Knopfel should not be writing to Professor Warren in this way. She was not suggesting hat he could not raise the points he wished to raise, just that there was a correct process through which he could do that.

[514]We consider the allegation is not proven on the facts, but that in any event there was no detriment to Professor Knopfel, in any event. C’s “PD5” being cited as an example of inappropriate behaviour in C’s dismissal letter of 17 November 2022 (issue 5.e.ii)

[515]We note the Respondent’s submissions that this matter should be treated 1999 as it is a matter relating to his dismissal. We agree with this

[516]In any event, it is incorrect that Professor Knopfels’ PD5 was cited as an example of inappropriate behaviour.

[517]Two examples of additional inappropriate behaviour by Professor Knopfel, are cited in the section of the dismissal letter dealing with Professor Bangham’s report. These were the comments Professor Knopfel had made when adding notes to the record of his interview with Professor Bangham and the written responses to the additional questions he had been asked by the Disciplinary Panel. Neither of these documents were relied on as protected disclosures by Professor Knopfel. This allegation therefore fails in any event. Automatic Unfair Dismissal Claim under section 103 Employment Rights Act

[518]Having found that Professor Knopfel did not make any protected disclosures, the principal reason for his dismissal cannot have been because he made a protected disclosure. His claim of automatic unfair dismissal fails. Ordinary Unfair Dismissal What was the reason for Professor Knopfel’s dismissal a fair reason

[519]The reason relied upon by the Respondent for Professor Knopfel’s dismissal was his conduct. We find that this was its genuine reason. Was Professor Knopfel’s Dismissal Fair?

[520]The Respondent genuinely believed that Professor Knopfel was guilty of the alleged misconduct for which it dismissed him. The questions for us were whether it had conducted a proper and adequate investigation such that it held that belief on reasonable grounds, whether a fair and reasonable procedure was followed and whether the Respondent’s decision to dismiss Professor Knopfel was a reasonable sanction in the circumstances.

[521]When considering these matters, we are not permitted to substitute own views for that of the Respondent, but must consider whether what it did was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.

[522]Professor Knopfel invited us to find that his dismissal was not fair for the reasons set out in the list of issues. We considered those as well as making our own relevant observations. Investigation / Process Issues

[523]Professor Knopfel’s first argument was that evidence that the Respondent relied on was fabricated or forged. We note that Professor Knopfel often used these terms whenever a witness said something with which he disagreed, discounting the possibility that they may have made a genuine error or may simply have a different perspective from him. Perhaps the best example of this can be found in the allegation of research misconduct that he made against Professor Bangham in relation to the factual error, later corrected, that Professor Knopfel had made a successful grant application to the MRC. Professor Knopfel believed this was a deliberate false representation when it was a straightforward mistake.

[524]Before us, Professor Knopfel argued that the three complainants fabricated their allegations of harassment. His argument was that they had other workrelated reasons for wanting to leave his laboratory and in order to be allowed to do so and take their funding with them, they knowingly falsely made allegations against him. He did not explain what the other work-reasons were in any detail.

[525]Professor Newman-Taylor’s outcome was that although Professor Knopfel was not guilty of two of the allegations he investigated, he was guilty of the third allegation. It was this allegation that was taken forwarded to the disciplinary proceedings.

[526]When investigating this allegation, Professor Newman-Taylor was faced with the difficult task of deciding a number of allegations of verbal bulling and harassment. In order to do this, he met with the three complaints as well as Professor Knopfel and Dr Song.

[527]Based on what the three complainants told him, he found that their genuine experience of working with Professor Knopfel was one of working in an intimidating and undermining work environment which had reduced their self-confidence and ability to progress their projects. He found that this was why they wanted to leave the laboratory.

[528]Professor Newman-Taylor’s decision was not based solely on what the complainants told him. He also relied on the fact that others had made similar complaints about Professor Knopfel. Although the outcome of the previous investigations was not a finding that Professor Knopfel was guilty of bullying or harassment, the investigations confirmed that he had engaged in similar behaviour on previous occasions and repeatedly.

[529]Professor Newman-Taylor reached the conclusion he reached because he believed that the complainants were being genuine and because the earlier investigations were evidence that Professor Knopfel had behaved in a similar way previously and it was therefore more likely than not that he was guilty on this occasion.

[530]We find that this was a reasonable conclusion for him to reach based on what he was told and the information available to him.

[531]Professor Knopfel interpreted the collection of this corroborating evidence as expanding the investigation, but we do not find this was the case. Faced with the difficult decision of whom to believe, Professor Newman-Taylor was entitled to explore the additional contextual evidence. It would have been best practice for him to share that he was doing this with Professor Knopfel so that he could consider any comments from Professor Knopfel before reaching final conclusion, but was he did was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer. Professor Knopfel was given a chance to comment on the material as part of the disciplinary process and he did so, albeit in writing and never as part of a coherent oral submission as to why he should not be found guilty.

[532]Professor Knopfel’s second argument was that the Respondent had suppressed and omitted evidence form the investigations.

[533]There was one piece of evidence that was omitted from the investigation into the complainant’s joint grievance. That was the evidence provided by Isabell Whiteley. The reason this was done was because Ms Whiteley was concerned about her anonymity. The consequence was that evidence which could have been helpful to Professor Knopfel was not included. As we said earlier, we are astonished that this was done, but the reality is that nothing substantive flows from it. The evidence was not particularly significant. Although it arguably helped Professor Knopfel by being able to show that Ms Whiteley was not unhappy with her treatment by him or had witnesses any poor behaviour by him herself, she was not able to speak about the specific allegations that were being investigated. We consider it would have made no difference to the overall outcome.

[534]A third argument was that Professor Knopfel felt that there should have been a broader investigation into who had shared confidential information with Dr Bernal-Casas. We are satisfied that sufficient investigation was undertaken that confirmed that no-one had done this. In any event, a further investigation would not have changed anything about how Professor Knopfel had behaved towards Dr Bernal-Casas at the relevant time. This was what was led to the finding against him.

[535]The fourth argument made by Professor Knopfel was that there was a hidden agenda or conspiracy at play. He believed that the entire process of the investigations had been orchestrated by Professor Matthews.

[536]It is correct that Professor Matthews was involved in taking steps that may have led to the complaints against Professor Knopfel proceeding formally, rather than informally. This was because both sets of complainants, Dr Bernal-Casas and the three complainants approached him with concerns about Professor Knopfel. This was because of his role as Head of the Department of Brain Sciences.

[537]Professor Matthews denies encouraging the complainants to formalise their complaints, but his reaction to the concerns being raised no doubt influenced what happened next. Even if he did influence the complainants in this way, he was not responsible for conducting the investigations or the disciplinary outcome. There was no evidence before us that he had any undue influence over the investigators, the disciplinary panel nor the appeal panel. He was interviewed and attended the disciplinary hearing, but simply as a witness and not a decision-maker.

[538]Professor Knopfel argues that without Professor Matthews’ confirming to the RMRG that the research misconduct allegation appeared to have substance, the investigation would not have taken place. We do not agree. Professor Matthews incorrectly based his assessment on the wrong successful grant application that had been made. However, all he was checking at that stage was whether there had been a grant application made that did not name Dr Bernal-Casas for funding in the area of research he had been discussing with Professor Knopfel. Had Professor Matthews located the correct unsuccessful grant application, it would still have needed to be reviewed by someone appointed by the RMRG, to see if what Dr Bernal-Casas was saying was correct, that it contained his intellectual property.

[539]Professor Knopfel also argues that Professor Matthews influenced the outcome of the disciplinary process because of the steps he took, so quickly, that enabled Dr Eicklebeck and Dr Karapinar to leave the Respondent and by moving Mr Sintes to a different supervisor. He argues that doing this before any investigation had been undertaken created an impression that he was guilty which pervaded the thinking of the Disciplinary Panel.

[540]Professor Matthews moved with remarkable speed to arrange the relevant transfers which could be seen as suspicious, particularly when viewed alongside the reasoning in the outcome letter. There the Disciplinary Panel specifically refer to the fact that the three complainants felt they had no option other than to leave the laboratory as the key reason for treating Professor Knopfel’s behaviour as gross misconduct.

[541]We do not however, find that Professor Matthews behaviour fell outside the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer. We accept that his actions were driven by what the complainants were saying to him. The transfers were also permitted within the Respondent’s policies. Finally, we consider the Disciplinary Panel would have reached the same conclusion had the transfers not been arranged. Their point was that the complainants felt they had no option but to leave, rather than the fact that they did leave.

[542]Professor Knopfel argues that he was not able to defend himself at the disciplinary hearings because of the behaviour of Professor Lightstone. He accuses her of reaching a conclusion that he was guilty before the disciplinary hearings took place and expressing biased points of view during the hearings to the extent that he was unable to participate in the remaining hearings in person.

[543]We have some limited sympathy with what he says. Professor Lightstone had expressed a view, in her email sent before the disciplinary process began, that the process was simply about deciding an appropriate sanction. This was not at all correct. She was provided with guidance on this point, however, and we accept that she understood and applied that guidance when conducting the disciplinary process.

[544]The biggest error we consider Professor Lightstone made was in requiring Professor Knopfel and Dr Song to act with deference to the investigators and the panel. She appeared to take issue with the fact that they dared to question the competence or motives of the investigators, despite the fact that they were entitled to do so.

[545]We considered whether this attitude prevented her from being open to the possibility that the investigations had been poorly conducted or flawed in other ways. Ultimately, we find that it did not. The process that was adopted did allow Professor Knopfel to challenge the findings of the two investigations and he did so. It was, however, within the range of reasonable responses of reasonable employers for the Disciplinary Panel to accept the findings of the investigations, once they had considered whether there were any genuine flaws in the investigations.

[546]Professor Lightstone’s approach unfortunately created a very difficult dynamic in the hearings. She expressed her opinion on matters during the hearing which would have been better left to the Disciplinary Panel’s final deliberations.

[547]Taken as a whole, we find that Professor Lightstone’s interventions were well meaning. She was trying to get Professor Knopfel and Dr Song to focus on the issues she considered to be important and that were going to be relevant to the Disciplinary Panel’s reasoned decision making. In doing this, however, she created the impression that she was not listening to their arguments and had already made up her mind.

[548]Although we have made some criticisms of Professor Lightstone’s behaviour, we do not consider it was so bad that it justified Professor Knopfel deciding not to attend any further meetings on 20 April 2022. In doing so he missed the opportunity to make submissions to the panel of his own version of events and effectively tell his side of the story in a straightforward and concise way. He was not signed off as medically unfit and we consider his decision not to attend was voluntary. It resulted in him never making his case to the Disciplinary Panel in a coherent manner. Instead, he relied on them being able to piece together his arguments from hundreds of pages of documents without any real guidance.

[549]We find that the disciplinary process that followed was fair and reasonable. The Respondent adjusted it significantly to ensure that Professor Knopfel was able to participate. This included delaying the first hearing at Professor Knopfel’s request and lengthening the overall process. It was broken down into manageable chunks.

[550]Professor Knopfel attended two disciplinary hearings. Although there was a difficult dynamic at times, he and Dr Song nevertheless had an opportunity ask extensive oral questions of Professor Newman-Taylor. We consider the Disciplinary’s Panel’s decision to limit the further written questions he was allowed to put to Professor Newman-Taylor was reasonable because the questions had already been put or related to irrelevant matters.

[551]Professor Knopfel was given the opportunity to ask questions in writing of Professor Matthew and, when he decided not to attend any further meetings, was given the opportunity to provide written submissions and evidence. The Disciplinary Panel asked him questions and he was permitted to respond to them in writing. The panel considered all of the material they had been given and approached their task with diligence. Sanction

[552]Having found the process and findings made by the Disciplinary Panel regard to the question of the sanction and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.

[553]Professor Knopel argued that the Disciplinary Panel took into account the behaviour he displayed during the disciplinary process, including his communications with them, when deciding on the sanction. This was a potential matter of concern to us given the dim view that Professor Lightstone took of Professor Knopfel’s behaviour, some of which lacked justification.

[554]We consider Professor Lightstone was right to seek to ensure that Professor Knopfel remained polite and courteous in his dealings with the Disciplinary Process. It was not fair to treat him as guilty of behaving badly by reason of him wanting to challenge the investigators, but it was fair to take into account the manner and tone in which he did this, which as time progressed became more and more extreme.

[555]We were satisfied that, although the Disciplinary Panel referenced Professor Knopfel’s behaviour towards Professor Lightstone and the witnesses in their outcome letter, this did not contribute to the sanction. Instead, the Disciplinary Panel’s observations about his behaviour were directed at the factual position. The Panel took the view that the behaviour it witnessed was similar to that the complainants complained about which reinforced their view that Professor Knopfel was guilty.

[556]We were also concerned that the sanction issued may have taken into account the earlier behaviour, which had already been investigated and no action taken. We were satisfied, however, that the earlier conduct did not contribute to the choice of sanction in the sense that the sanction given was intended to be for a combination of the earlier and more recent behaviour. The only influence the earlier behaviour had on the Disciplinary Panel’s thinking about the sanction was that giving Professor Knorpel a warning would not result in a future change in his behaviour, because he had had previous informal warnings that had not led to him changing.

[557]The final matter that concerned us was that Professor Knopfel had been investigated for similar behaviour before, but no action had been taken. We were concerned that this meant that it was had not been made clear to him that repeated behaviour of the same nature would result in dismissal with the consequence that the fair sanction at this time was a warning rather than dismissal.

[558]On the outcome letter the Disciplinary Penl made it clear that they considered the bullying and harassment of the complainants was very serious because it resulted in two post docs and a student feeling they had no option but to leave his laboratory. This provides an explanation as to why it was considered to be materially different and more to what had occurred before. This was a position that was within the range of reasonable responses.

[559]Taking all of the above into account, we find that the sanction was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer and therefore that Professor Knopfel’s dismissal was fair in all the circumstances. Remedy Issues

[560]We also considered the following remedy issues. Would Professor Knopfel’s employment have terminated in any event? (Issue 13)

[561]We consider that if we are wrong about Professor Knopfel’s dismissal being fair for misconduct, the Respondent was in a position to fairly dismiss him on the basis that there had been a complete for a breakdown in trust and confidence between them. There was no possibility of Professor Knopfel being able to continue to report to Professor Matthews in light of the allegations he had made against him. In addition, the tone of his correspondence revealed that Professor Knopfel had no remaining respect for any of the senior leadership team at the Respondent.

[562]The employment relationship was broken at the time of his dismissal because of his attitude toward the investigations and behaviour throughout the processes. It would have been fair for the Respondent to dismiss him for this reason. Did Professor Knopfel contribute to his dismissal? (Issue 14)

[563]We consider that Professor Knopfel’s contribution to his dismissal can be measured at 100%. Time

[564]It was not in dispute that Professor Knopfel’s claims for automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal were in time.

[565]It was not also in dispute that any detriments he was relying on that arose after 11 November 2022 were in time. This was the detriments at issues 5.a.iv, 5.b.v, 5.c.v, 5.d.ii and 5.e.ii.

[566]As we have not upheld any of his detriment claims, we do not have to consider if the remaining detriments were made in time or not. We have done so however, in the alternative. We would not have found any of the other detriments to be in time as they were not part of any coherent series of detriments.

[567]None of Professor Knopfel’s legal complaints succeed. DR SONG’S CLAIMS Dr Song’s Purported Disclosures

[568]We first considered whether Dr Song had made any protected disclosures. It was not in dispute that all of the communications she relied upon were sent to her employer and therefore the requirements in section 43C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were met. The issue we focused on was whether the communications amounted to qualifying protected disclosures as defined in section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (s.43B(1) ERA).

[569]At the time Dr Song made her complaint she wanted it to be considered as a whistleblowing complaint under the Respondent’s ordinance D18 and said so. However, when agreeing the terms of reference with Professor Muggeridge, she was content to accept that the bulk of what she had submitted was actually a grievance about her own personal situation.

[570]A general matter we took into account when undertaking this task was the extent to which Dr Song’s ‘reverse engineering’ of her complaints was genuine. We will explain what we mean this by this.

[571]However, her lack of legal knowledge, understandably, meant that she knew nothing about s.43B(1)ERA. Had she had such knowledge, we are quite sure she would have structured her complaint with the section in mind and expressly said which part of s.43B(1) ERA she had in mind. However, at the time of making her complaint, her knowledge of whistleblowing was more generic. As she did not use the language that is found in s.43B(1) ERA expressly, she had to ‘reverse engineer’ her complaints in order to argue that she had the types of disclosure that are talked about in s.43B(1) ERA in her mind at the time, even though she did not exactly say as such. We have had to consider how much of what she has argued about this was genuine and how much has come from her having learned, since commencing her employment tribunal claim, about the legal requirements for protected disclosures.

[572]Dr Song relied on six purported disclosures, all said to be contained in her written complaint of 25 June 2021 PD1: Colleagues had been responsible for breaches of confidence in providing a confidential internal draft application to Dr David Bernal Casas without the Claimant’s knowledge or permission.

[573]Although Dr Song’s written complaint does not name Dr Bernal-Casas, it does include a clear allegation that he was provided with confidential information and provides background information about this.

[574]The judgment of the Tribunal is that the content of the email meets the sufficiency test in relation to it containing sufficient information about a breach of a legal obligation and concealment of the same. Dr Song’s allegation that someone has provided Dr Bernal-Casas with confidential information is clearly explained. Although she does not expressly say that she considers the information shows a breach of a legal obligation, this is understood. She also says that the breach of confidentiality has been ignored, highlighting concealment.

[575]We consider that Dr Song genuinely believed that there had been a breach of confidentiality and that someone at the Respondent had told Dr BernalCasas about the unsuccessful MRC grant application. We therefore considered whether this was a reasonable belief.

[576]Similar to our conclusion for Professor Knopfel, we considered it was reasonable for her to believe this before there had been any investigations into the matter, but the position changed as a result of the investigations. The question for us was whether it was reasonable for Dr Song to continue believe this at this time she wrote her complaint on 25 June 2021 and to believe that the breach was being concealed. We find that it was not.

[577]By 25 June 2021, there had been a preliminary investigation by Professor Bangham into the breach which had concluded that there had not been one. Professor Bangham had confirmed in his outcome report that Dr BernalCasas had explained that no-one from the Respondent had provided him with information. He had also amended his report to clarify that the grant application he investigated had not been successful and therefore Dr Bernal-Casas had raised his complaint on the basis of false information, pointing to there having been no leak. The documents confirming this had been shared with Dr Song by Professor Knopfel.

[578]Dr Song also had access to the underlying emails which reveal that Dr Bernal-Casas’ information came directly from what he had been told by Professor Knopfel. Before writing her complaint and being so robust in her defence of Professor Knopfel, we would have expected her to have carefully read the emails. Had she done so she would have realised that the so called confidential information that Dr Bernal-Casas had, had been communicated to him by Professor Knopfel. This would not have been an onus task for her to undertake, but instead she became fixated on her own narrative explanation of what had happened and was determined to prove it.

[579]The focus of Dr Song’s complaint in relation to the Dr Bernal-Casas matter was that his alleged conduct had impacted on her as much as Professor Knopfel ,as she had contributed to the work in the relevant grant applications. Although she referenced the importance of the wider scientific community condemning malicious attacks on researchers such as herself in her complaint, in our judgment, this was essentially a complaint by DR Song that the decision to discipline Professor Knopfel as an outcome to the research misconduct investigation was damaging to her own reputation.

[580]We find that Dr Song genuinely believed it was in the public interest to raise the concern. She had become convinced of her on narrative as mentioned above. However, it was not reasonable for her to believe that she was making the matter in the public interest. It was personal for her.

[581]We do not find that PD1 was a qualifying protected disclosure. PD2: a colleague, Marcos Sintes, who was engaged in an in vivo study involving experimental mice ceased to attend the laboratory, neglected their duties without notification and became unresponsive to communication. Such behaviour amounted to serious research misconduct contrary to the responsibilities of a Home Office Personal Licence holder.

[582]Dr Song’s disclosure about this matter is set out in full in the facts section. Although she does not name Mr Sintes, there is information about him having been involved in an study using experimental mice and then not showing up to planned experiments, neglecting his duties without notification and becoming unresponsive when she tried to contact him. Criminal Offence

[583]The judgment of the Tribunal is that the content of the email does not meet the sufficiency test in relation to it containing information that shows a criminal offence has been committed or concealed. Dr Song does not say this expressly. She accuses Mr Sintes of professional negligence, research misconduct and negligence of the responsibilities of a Home Office Personal Licence Holder. It does not follow from these references that a criminal offence has been committed. Breach of a Legal Obligation

[584]The references in the email do, however, meet the sufficiency of information to show that there has been a breach of a legal obligation. Even though that Dr Song does not specify which laws have been breached, we consider this is the natural interpretation of her complaint.

[585]Dr Song says that at the time she submitted her complaint, she reasonably believed the breaches amounted to a criminal offence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We do not find that she did. In our judgment had she believed this at the time she would have expressly said this in her written complaint. Her intention in making the complaint was to raise the concerns in her mind without ‘pulling any punches’ and so if the possibility of a criminal behaviour had been in her mind, this would have been included. This is an example of an attempt at reverse engineering what was in her mind at the time into something that fits into section 43B(1) ERA.

[586]We find that Dr Song genuinely believed that there had been a technical breach of a legal obligation at the time of writing her complaint. She says now that the breach she had in mind was of the legal obligations of a Home Office Personal Licence Holder under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

[587]Mr Sintes was a personal licence holder. He needed to be to perform the experiments he was doing. Although Professor Knopfel was the project licence holder and had overall responsibility, this did not negate that Mr Sintes had his own responsibilities. We note that Dr Song was the deputy project licence holder and also a personal licence holder in her own right.

[588]We note that Professor Muggeridge failed to uphold Dr Song’s complaint about this matter because the mice were being cared for in the animal house and Mr Sintes had had to leave the laboratory because he was unwell. Having researched the licence conditions, she concluded that there was no breach of the licence conditions. Dr Song challenged this conclusion at the hearing and maintained that there was a breach even though she accepted that the animals had been well cared for in the animal house.

[589]We are concerned with whether Dr Song’s belief was reasonable based on what she knew at the time she made the complaint. This was some six months after the events she complained about had occurred.

[590]Dr Song knew that Mr Sintes had left the laboratory mid-experiment and the experiment had been stopped. She also knew that the welfare of the mice involved in the experiment had not been an issue and that they had been well cared for. She had raised this issue and been reassured on this point.

[591]We accept that she genuinely believed that there had been a technical legal breach of Mr Sintes’ licence conditions. It was reasonable for her to believe this despite the welfare of the mice not being a matter of concern. She had a very good understanding of the technical requirements of being a licence holder and was well placed to assess this.

[592]In our judgment, concerns raised about the welfare of animals being used in scientific experiments are the type of concerns that are often inherently likely to be a matter of public interest. The issue here, however, was that there were no actual animal welfare concerns and so our analysis has had to be more nuanced.

[593]We find that Dr Song did not genuinely believe that she was raising this complaint in the public interest however. If she was genuinely concerned, she would and believed there were grounds for Mr Sintes to have his personal licence for conducting animal experiments revoked, we consider she would have taken further action in connection with this at the relevant time, rather than wait six months.

[594]We find that the reason Dr Song raised this matter was to add fuel to her complaint about Professor Matthews. Making the complaint about Mr Sintes allowed her to make the additional complaint about Professor Matthews. He was her target because she believed he had conspired against her and Professor Knopfel. Again this was personal for Dr Song.

[595]We do not find that PD2 was a qualifying protected disclosure. PD3: when she raised this concern with her Head of Department (HOD), she was “faced with a light dismissal and inaction”, which constituted “professional negligence of the HoD in maintaining research integrity, which could lead to severe damage to the College, should research integrity still be one of the values of the College and an expectation of the College’s funders”.

[596]Dr Song’s disclosure about this matter is set out in full in the facts section. She frames the disclosure as one where she is providing information about Professor Matthews and also suggests, although does not say expressly, that he has acted to conceal the alleged breaches by Mr Sintes. Criminal Offence and Concealment of the Same

[597]The disclosure does not contain information that suggests that Professor Matthews is himself guilty of any criminal offence. Dr Song does not expressly accuse him of this and instead says only that he is guilty of professional misconduct in maintain research integrity. This language does not refer to a criminal offence, but to something akin to a breach of ethics.

[598]It follows from our conclusion in relation to this point on PD2, that there is insufficient information to suggest Professor Matthews was concealing a criminal offence by Mr Sintes.

[599]Given our interpretation of Dr Song’s disclosure as containing language that is akin to accusing Professor Matthews of a breach of ethics, it follows that we do not find that Dr Song’s disclosure about him contained a sufficiency of information showing Professor Matthews had committed a breach of lagal obligation.

[600]However, we do find that the disclosure meets the sufficiency test for information that shows concealment by Professor Matthews of a legal breach by Mr Sintes.

[601]As with PD2, we do not consider Dr Song genuinely believed that the information she had disclosed showed a criminal offence had been committed. Again, we consider if she thought this, she would have said this expressly.

[602]We accept that Dr Song genuine believed that there had been a technical breach by Mr Sintes of his licence conditions and that by failing to act when alerted to that, Professor Matthews was involved in concealing that breach. Professor Matthews had taken action, but he did not tell Dr Song this and therefore she could not know this.

[603]Our reasoning on this point for PD2 also applies here. We find that Dr Song believed that she had been wronged by Professor Matthews and raised this complaint primarily about him. This was not a complaint she made in the public interest, but to attack him.

[604]We do not find that PD3 was a qualifying protected disclosure. PD4: her HOD and the Respondent’s HR function had “effectively endorsed low standards in animal experiments” when the Claimant had raised concerns that a colleague did not have the necessary experience of animal surgery required to discharge their functions in the laboratory, and that this had “potential detrimental consequences to the research integrity promoted by the College”.

[605]Dr Song’s written complaint was about the difference in treatment between her and Dr Eicklebeck. She compared the fact that the Respondent had failed to investigate Dr Eicklebeck, in response to her complaint about him not having the experience he claimed to have, with the fact that his complaints about her had been investigated. She asserted that it was possible to conclude from this that Professor Matthews and HR endorsed low standards in animal experiments. This assertion does not make logical or coherent sense, where the respective complaints were of a completely different nature and made in entirely different contexts.

[606]The judgment of the Tribunal is that on this point, Dr Song’s complaint did not contain sufficient information to show that a legal obligation was being breached or that such a breach was being concealed.

[607]Dr Song genuinely believed that Dr Eicklebeck had exaggerated his expertise in in vivo experiments. She made no complaint about this when she learned about it, but instead provided training to him to bring his expertise up to standard. She only made a complaint later, after Dr Eicklebeck had made a complaint about her.

[608]We do not consider it was reasonable for her to jump to the conclusion that this resulted in the breach of a legal obligation in which Professor Matthews and HR were implicated. Dr Song says now that she believed that the Respondent’s inaction, which we take to mean their failure to investigate her concern, amounted to a breach of legal obligations under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This appears to us to be entirely reverse engineered and was not what was in her mind at the time at all.

[609]We conclude that Dr Song did not reasonably believe she was making the disclosure in the public interest, for the same reasons given for PD2 and PD3.

[610]We do not find that PD3 was a qualifying protected disclosure. PD5: there was administrative malpractice on the part of the Respondent’s staff in relation to the management of BRAIN Initiative research grants provided by the US National Institute of Health which had “led to recurrent damage to the research activity, international reputation, and wellbeing of our laboratory”.

[611]Dr Song’s focus in this section of her complaint is entirely on the administrative failures which she lists. The impacts she is concerned about are on the research being undertaken, her personal and the laboratory’s reputation in the international research community and the additional time she and Professor Knopfel have had to spend dealing with the grant issues. Criminal Offence and Concealment of the Same

[612]The judgment of the Tribunal is that the content of the complaint is insufficient to show that a criminal offence is being committed or concealed. Dr Song does not say this. She says nothing in the complaint about fraud or fraudulent activity.

[613]We also do not consider there is sufficient information in the complaint about any breaches of legal obligations. Dr Song does not say that the administrators involved have acted in breach of any legal duty or that the impact of their behaviour is that any legal duties were breached.

[614]We do not consider Dr Song genuinely believed that the information she had disclosed in her complaint showed a criminal offence had been committed. If she did, it was not reasonable for her to do so.

[615]We find that at the time she made the complaint, Dr Song genuinely believed that the administration of the relevant grants had been incompetent. It appears reasonable for her to have this view, based on what she had experienced at the time, but we have not had to make a finding on this point.

[616]This is because a disclosure about administrative incompetence that interrupts research, causes reputational damage and involves someone spending time on something that is not their main job, is not a disclosure that meets the requirements of s.43B(1) because it is not a disclosure of any of the matters in that section, including that it is not a disclosure of a breach of a legal obligation.

[617]When giving her evidence to the tribunal, Dr Song told us that one of the impacts of the administration’s failings was that the respondent was in breach of legal agreements with other institutions. Assuming this was true, albeit that no legal proceedings were ever issued, we consider it is significant that she did not say this in her complaint. This leads us to conclude that this was not what she had in mind at the time of making her complaint. Instead she has sought to reverse engineer a very valid complaint about internal grant administration into a disclosure that meets the requirements of s.43B(1) in order to turn her internal complaint into a legal claim.

[618]Our finding is that Dr Song did not genuinely believe she was disclosing information that showed a breach of a legal obligation. Based on what she said the issues were that she was experiencing as set out in her complaint, it would not be reasonable for her to have held this belief.

[619]We do not consider that Dr Song genuinely believed that she was raising the concerns she was raising about the grant funding in the public interest. She raised the concerns because they were about her, her research, her reputation and her time. This was a personal complaint and it was not reasonable of her to think otherwise.

[620]We do not find that PD5 constituted a qualifying protected disclosure. PD6: previous named staff in her Department had also raised concerns about “a toxic environment and institutional malpractice”, the claimant providing an example a public domain posting by Dr Rob Leech in December 2018 who claimed that he had “raised issues [...], encountered constant denial and resistance” and that it was “[t]he most corrosive environment I have worked in’.

[621]We do not consider this part of the Claimant’s complaint, by itself, contained sufficient information about any of the matters set out in section 43B(1)ERA to constitute a qualifying protected disclosure. All that she said in this short paragraph was that, based on her other complaints, she believed the Respondent operated a ‘corrosive environment’. She provided information about two other people who had apparently said similar things, but provided no detail. It is notable that in her closing written submissions, Dr Song did not cite which element of section 43B(1)ERA she considered was engaged by this part of her complaint. This suggests to us that, by the end of the hearing, even she appreciated that this part of her complaint said nothing of real substance.

[622]In summary, we concluded that Dr Song did not make any qualifying protected disclosures. Dr Song’s Section 47B ERA 1996 Detriments

[623]Having found that none of Dr Song’s purported protected disclosures meet the legal test for a qualifying protected disclosure it was not necessary for us to consider the purported section 47 detriments. We did, however, in case she successfully appeals our decision on the disclosures. We note that she relies on the same matters as breaches of trust and confidence that led to her resignation so our factual conclusions in this section are relevant to that section in any event.

[624]In connection with each allegation, we considered:• whether what Dr Song alleged actually occurred from a factual perspective;

• why the Respondent acted as it did; and

• whether there was a detriment to Dr Song. Failing adequately to investigate the matters raised in her complaint of 25 June 2021 and in the investigation thereof (Issue 4.1.1)

[625]Before considering this overarching allegation, we first considered the suballegations said to contribute to the overarching allegation. Professor Muggeridge omitted evidence Dr Song submitted during the investigation, and that such omission was deliberate (Issue 4.1.1.1)

[626]Professor Muggeridge confirmed when giving her evidence that she had not considered some emails which Dr Song had sent her.

[627]The reason she did this was Dr Song had expressly not give her consent to refer to the evidence in the final report. Professor Muggeridge simply followed this instruction. The omission was deliberate in the sense that Professor Muggeridge made a conscious decision not to include the emails, but this was not to try and cover up any of the matters she had investigated and was not because of the concerns that Dr Song had raised.

[628]In any event, the content of the emails made no different to the outcomes in the report. We therefore find that there was no detriment to Dr Song. Professor Muggeridge failed to interview the witnesses Dr Song named (Issue 4.1.1.2)

[629]There were three witnesses that Dr Song asked Professor Muggeridge to interview that she did not interview. They were Professor Knopfel, Mr Sanders and Dr Gould.

[630]We are satisfied that the reasons that Professor Muggeridge gave us for not interviewing these individuals were genuine. Her decision had nothing to do with trying to subvert the investigation outcomes and were not linked with the nature of the concerns Dr Song had raised.

[631]We also find that there was no detriment to Dr Song as a result of not conducting these interviews as they would not have changed the investigation outcome. The subject matter Mr Sanders and Dr Gould would have covered was already covered by others. Professor Knopfel’s contribution would simply have mirrored what Dr Song had already told Professor Muggeridge. We find that Professor Muggeridge was right in this assessment. Professor Muggeridge chose to believe Professor Matthews’s claims (Issue 4.1.1.3)

[632]Professor Muggeridge ultimately chose to accept Professor Matthews’ evidence when reaching her conclusions.

[633]We note that one of Dr Song’s specific concerns was that Professor Muggeridge had relied on what Professor Matthews had told her about animal experiment licences and the grant funding issues. This was not correct. Professor Muggeridge had undertaken her own research in connection with the licences. She based her conclusions regarding the grant funding issues on speaking to the specialist grant administrators.

[634]Professor Muggeridge was entitled to accept Professor Matthew’s evidence in her role as investigator. We do not find she did this because she was trying to subvert the investigation outcome or because of the nature of Dr Song’s concerns. She did this because she believed what Professor Matthews had told her and she considered he had behaved appropriately with regard to the complainants.

[635]There was likely a detriment to Dr Song as a result of Professor Muggeridge accepting Professor Matthew’s evidence, as arguably it meant some of her grievances were not upheld, although this can only arise in relation to matters where the decision making was solely based on his view as opposed to Dr Song’s view and this was not the case for most of the investigation outcomes. HR failed to provide Dr Song with meeting notes of her interview with Professor Muggeridge to Dr Song until eight months after the interview took place (4.1.1.4)

[636]It is correct that the meetings took place on 17 and 24 November 2021 and the notes were not provided until 10 August 2022.

[637]We accept the Respondent had a genuine explanation for the delay, which was staff shortages in HR. The delay was not materially influenced by the nature of the concerns Dr Song had raised.

[638]The detriment to Dr Song was that the investigation outcome was delayed, but we do not consider the lateness with which the notes were provided led to any deficiencies in the quality of the investigation. Professor Muggeridge made her own notes during the meetings and used these to guide her investigations. Professor Muggeridge failed to investigate Dr Song’s concerns about breaches of confidence (4.1.1.5)

[639]It is correct that Professor Muggeridge failed to investigate Dr Song’s concerns that someone internal had provided Dr Bernal-Casas with confidential information about grant applications made by Professor Knopfel and Dr Song.

[640]This was because Professor Muggeridge was informed, correctly, that the matter had already been investigated. She did not fail to undertake an investigation into this part of Dr Song’s complaint to try and subvert the investigation or because of the nature of the concerns she had raised.

[641]There was no detriment to Dr Song because the investigation she wanted had taken place Failing to conclude its investigation into this complaint until after Dr Song’s resignation (nearly eighteen months after the complaint was made) (Issue 4.1.2)

[642]It is correct that there was a long delay between the date Dr Song made her complaint (25 June 2021) and the date when she received the outcome (23 December 2022).

[643]The Respondent relied on several reasons for the delay.

[644]The primary reason was that it was a complex complaint with several different aspects to it that required a broad investigation. It was never going to be a piece of work that could be completed quickly if it was to be done well and with the appropriate level of thoroughness. Although she was a Consul who had protected time to undertake the investigation, Professor Muggeridge was also a working academic while she was conducting the investigation, with diary commitments that she had to keep.

[645]There were also several specific delays on route. There were some early delays in starting the investigation. It took nearly a month for Respondent’s President to respond to it initially and then a further month for an investigator to be appointed and make contact with Dr Song. These delays have not been satisfactorily explained by the Respondent, but we have no reason to believe that they were anything other than part of its normal administrative processes.

[646]Once Professor Muggeridge had been appointed, it then took a further two months to agree the terms of reference for the investigation. This was understandable given the complexity of the concerns raised.

[647]Professor Muggeridge interviewed Dr Song twice in November 2021. Following that interview, letters were sent to the other people to be interviewed asking them for their initial written responses to the concerns. This was in line with the Respondent’s procedures, but inevitably took time because each of the people contacted needed to be given time to consider and where relevant investigate the concerns that had been raised before responding in writing.

[648]The interviews were conducted between February and April, which was not an unreasonable timescale. The big delay however, arose because of the administrative difficulties in HR which meant that notes were not being prepared and able to be sent to the interviewees promptly for their approval. Professor Muggeridge kept Dr Song updated as to when the interviews were taking place explained the administrative difficulties to her.

[649]It then took Professor Muggeridge several months to collate all the evidence she had reviewed and write the report. By this time there was a large volume of information. She relied on the assistance of Ms Fernandez with this. A member of the HR team facing staff shortages, Ms Fernandez was also struggling with her own workload at the time.

[650]We find that the above were the genuine reasons for the delay. The grievance outcome was not delayed because of the nature of the concerns raised by Dr Song.

[651]The delay was a detriment. Failing adequately to investigate the matters raised in her complaint of 25 June 2021 and in the investigation thereof (issue 4.1.1)

[652]Returning to the overarching allegation that Professor Muggeridge failed to adequately investigate the matters raised by Dr Song and that her investigation was otherwise inadequate, we do not find this was the case. Some matters were not investigated, namely the complaints against exemployees Dr Karapinar and Dr Eicklebeck, the matters that had already been investigated as part of the RMRG process and the broader more nebulous allegation regarding a corrosive working environment. It was sensible to take this approach, which was also agreed with Dr Song.

[653]Professor Muggeridge’s outcome was delayed, but this did not detract from the fact that she undertook a thorough and carefully considered investigation. She treated Dr Song’s concerns seriously and was open to the possibility that what she was saying was true despite the somewhat melodramatic language used by Dr Song in her complaint. We find that there was no failure by Professor Muggeridge as alleged. Dr Song’s section 12 ERA 1999 Claim

[654]It was not in dispute that Dr Song accompanied Professor Knopfel to the disciplinary hearings that took place on 10 February and 10 March 2022 and that as a result she fell under the protective provisions contained in section 12 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. Dr Song’s detriments – section 12 Employment Relations Act 1999

[655]Dr Song cited a number of detriments that she says arose because she had acted as Professor Knopfel’s companion at the disciplinary hearings. In addition, she relies on the same matters as breaches of trust and confidence that led to her resignation.

[656]In connection with each allegation, we considered:• whether what Dr Song alleged actually occurred from a factual perspective;

• why the Respondent acted as it did; and

• whether there was a detriment to Dr Song. Allegations made by Professor Lightstone’s against Dr Song in formal letters sent to those who participated in Professor Knopfel’s first disciplinary hearing (Issue 6.2.1)

[657]The letter about which Dr Song complains is Professor Lightstone’s letter dated 14 March 2021. In the letters she accused them both of being ‘rude and disrespectful’. The examples she gave were:• Adopting an accusatory line of questioning towards Professor Newman-Taylor and accusing him of collusion

• Dr Song accusing Maria Langton of posting anonymous comments on social media

• Using expletives

[658]In our judgment, it was unfair for Professor Lightstone to criticise Dr Song for these things.

[659]Dr Song was entitled to adopt an accusatory tone towards Professor Newman-Taylor and accuse him of collusion. Her presence at the hearing was to ask questions on behalf of Professor Knopfel. If Professor Knopfel believed Professor Newman-Taylor was guilty of collusion, it was appropriate for Dr Song to ask him about this. Inevitably her questions would have had an accusatory tone, but this did not mean they were not legitimate.

[660]Dr Song did not get as far as accusing Maria Langton of posting anonymous comments on social media. Professor Lightstone cut her off before she had the chance to ask her questions. Had she allowed Dr Song to make the point she had wanted to make, it would have become apparent that she was not accusing Ms Langton directly, but suggesting that someone that knew of Ms Langton’s involvement in the investigation had used her name. Dr Song actually thought it was Dr Eicklebeck who had made the posting.

[661]Dr Song did not use any expletives. The person that may have done this was Professor Knopfel, but Professor Lightstone’s letter does not say this.

[662]Professor Lightstone repeated the first two of these allegations in the dismissal letter dated 17 November 2022.

[663]These unfair criticisms must in our judgment amount to detriments. They arose in the course of Dr Song accompanying Professor Knopfel and therefore we find that this allegation is upheld, subject to having been made in time. Failing to investigate concerns raised by Dr Song about Professor Lightstone’s behaviour in breach of its zero-tolerance policy (Issue 6.2.2)

[664]Dr Song wrote to the Respondent’s Chair of Council, the Provost and the Senior Consul on 20 March 2022 to about Professor Lightstone’s behaviour. She did not describe her letter as a complaint, but said instead that she wanted to raise their awareness of certain matters. The three recipients deferred to Ms Kelly, Deputy Director of HR who responded saying she could not comment on the substance of the allegations, but effectively defended Profssor Lightstone’s right to write the letter. She did not offer to treat the letter as a complaint. Dr Song replied to say that she would like a response from Professor Lightstone, but did not ask that the matter be investigated further.

[665]We do not consider there was any detriment to Dr Song arising from the failure to investigate her concerns. This is because she did not position the letter as raising a complaint that needed investigation. We consider that Ms Kelly was correct to interpret the letter as Dr Song’s commentary on the disciplinary hearing that she wanted to share at the highest levels rather than a matter that required investigation in its own right.

[666]This allegation is not upheld. Acting (through Professor Lightstone) so as to deter Dr Song from continuing to act for Professor Knopfel (6.2.3)

[667]Although Professor Lightstone complained about Dr Song’s behaviour in her letter, we do not find that she was attempting to deter Dr Song from acting as Professor Knopfel’s companion at the disciplinary hearings. The reason Professor Lightstone sent the letter was because she wanted both Professor Knopfel and Dr Song to moderate their behaviour. Professor Lightstone continued to assume that Dr Song would continue to support Professor Knopfel and was surprised when she stood down.

[668]This allegation is not upheld. Continued claims by Professor Lightstone denouncing Dr Song after Dr Song resigned from participating in the disciplinary process despite C having informed Professor Lightstone that her claims were causing C distress (6.2.4)

[669]Dr Song says that the comments that were made by Professor Lightstone at the appeal hearing denounced her and caused her further distress. The comments are recorded in our factual section.

[670]It is not accurate to say Professor Lightstone denounced Dr Song, but the comments were a repetition of some of the criticisms that Professor Lightstone had made previously. In particular, to describe her as “deeply unpleasant in the meetings” went too far in our judgment.

[671]We therefore uphold this legal complaint. Dr Song’s Constructive Dismissal Claim

[672]Dr Song argues that the same allegations we have already considered as detriments were also fundamental breaches of contract, specifically the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, which led to her resignation.

[673]It is important to note that Dr Song resigned on 17 October 2022. Only possible breaches of which she was aware can have contributed to her resignation. This there means that anything she would not have known about until the final grievance report was produced is excluded.

[674]This has ruled out of our consideration, the alleged breaches listed in the issues at numbers 1.1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.1.3. Dr Song was aware before the final report was produced that Professor Muggeridge had decided not to interview three witnesses Dr Song had suggested so we have considered alleged breach 1.1.1.1.2. At the time of her resignation, there had been no final outcome after 16 months so the allegation relating to the delay, alleged breach 1.1.1.1.5 has also been considered.

[675]In addition, Dr Song would not have been aware of the contents of the dismissal letter sent to Professor Knopfel. This impacts on the alleged breach at number 1.1.1.2. We have only considered this in relation to the letter dated 14 March 2022. We also found that the Respondent did not try and deter Dr Song from acting as Professor Knopfel’s companion so the alleged breach numbered 1.1.1.4 has also not been considered further.

[676]Having specified the allegations we have considered, our conclusion is as follows.

[677]We do not find that any of the actions of Professor Muggeridge or HR in connection with the investigation into Dr Song’s grievance amounted to breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence. The decision not to interview the three witnesses or to undertake further investigations into the breach of confidentiality allegation were entirely reasonable. The delays in producing the notes of the meetings between Dr Song and Professor Muggeridge and in concluding the investigations were less reasonable, but as noted above, the Respondent had valid reasons for these delays.

[678]This was not behaviour that the Respondent took without reasonable and proper cause, nor was it conduct, when judged objectively calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee.

[679]We do, however, find that the unfair allegations that Professor Lightstone set out in her letter of 14 March 2022 to Dr Song did amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Professor Lightstone went beyond her remit as Disciplinary Panel Chair in the way she criticised Dr Song, in light of the role that Dr Song was performing and her junior status relative to Professor Lightstone’s status.

[680]We do not find that the failure to investigate the concerns that Dr Song raised in response to the letter to be a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence however. As noted above, Dr Song had not asked for an investigation nor for any action to be taken. Ms Kelly’s response to the letter was, in our view, too robust in the circumstances, but she was right to want to focus on ensuring the disciplinary process proceeded and try to avoid what was essentially being presented as a “side-skirmish” detracting from the main event.

[681]We do not find, however, that the letter of 14 March 2022 was a reason for Dr Song’s resignation in October, over six months later. It is striking that she did not step down from being Professor Knopfel’s companion until July 2022, when this was the most obvious response to the letter and that she did not resign for several months after that. We therefore considered that Dr Song affirmed her contract of employment after receiving the letter both by remaining in the role of companion and not resigning at that point.

[682]We find that the real reason Dr Song resigned when she did was to go to her new employment. She had applied for the new role in January 2022 and secured it on 20 May 2022. We do not know when the start date was agreed, but it appears to have been known by mid September 2022. Dr Song has suggested that she was forced to resign two weeks earlier than she wanted, but we do not accept this.

[683]Nothing that Dr Song relies on as a breach of contract occurred around the time of her resignation. In addition, the timing of her resignation fitted in perfectly with the start date of her new role. By resigning in mid-October 2022 she was perfectly placed to use her accrued annual leave to take time off to sort out her affairs, but still manage the transfer of equipment and mice to Singapore. She was then able to travel to Singapore a little before her start date, settle in and be ready to start work on 1 December 2022.

[684]In our judgment, Dr Song was not constructively dismissed. This means that she was not automatically dismissed pursuant to section 12 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 or section 103 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. She was also not unfairly dismissed pursuant to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Time

[685]It was not in dispute that Dr Song’s claims for automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal were in time.

[686]It was not also in dispute that any detriments she was relying on that arose after 15 October 2022 were in time. These was the detriments at issues 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.3, 4.1.2, and 6.2.4. Of these, only 6.2.4 succeeded.

[687]The only other allegation that succeeded was 6.2.1. That allegation was in two parts. The first part concerned comments made by Professor Lightstone in a letter dated 14 March 2022. The second part concerned comments made by her in the letter dismissing Professor Knopfel dated 17 November 2022. The legal complaint about the second part is in time. We also find that the legal complaint about the comments in the 14 March 2022 letter are in time. This is because they were essentially the same or very similar comments. We therefore find that there was a series of detriments where time runs from the date of the last detriment.

[688]Dr Song’s claims at 6.2.1 and 6.2.4 succeed, but all of her other claims fail. Employment Judge E Burns 1 June 2025 3 June 2025 ...................................................................... ...................................................................... For the Tribunals Office Appendix One List of Issues – Professor Knopfel Unfair dismissal contrary to s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) 1. Did C allege the following in his emails of 24 September 2019, 8 December 2020,8 March 2021, 8 October 2021 and 18 September 2022 to R:a. PD1: email of 24 September 2019 to Dr Chris Watkins that a “funder was charged for performance on a research grant while the Respondent obstructed performance on the grant by not releasing the budget required to perform the funded activity

b. PD2: email of 8 December 2020 to Mr John Neilson and Professor Nick Jennings “notifying two cases of research misconduct, namely plagiarism, and disclosure of confidential information and disclosure of confidential information by the Respondent’s employee”

c. PD3: email of 8 March 2021 to the President, Provost, Director of HR, and Mr Neilson: “notifying the fabrication of false representations and orchestration of a smear campaign by academic leaders of Imperial College’s Faculty of Medicine”

d. PD4 email of 8 October 2021 to Professor Liz Lightstone and others sending a letter from Aileen McColgan KC on behalf of the claimant “outlining the flaws of the grievance and research misconduct Investigations. The PD stated that:

THE LAW

[1]The appendices provided by R with the hearing invitation contained claims that have previously been investigated and dismissed;

[2]C was required to respond to a large number of allegations in a relatively short time;

[3]C needed to provide a detailed account of the shortcomings of the investigative processes on which those allegations are based, and of the inaccuracies of the outcomes those processes generated. By way of example only:• The claimant’s position was that the key interview by the Head of Department in the Karapinar/Eickelbeck grievance investigation contained numerous misrepresentations and unevidenced and demonstrably false statements but that the claimant’s FOIA and SA requests were not responded to in breach of legal requirements;

• The claimant was not informed of the numerous additional claims that emerged subsequent to his investigation interviews and was provided with no opportunity to respond to them;

• The appendices provided with the hearing invitation contain numerous misrepresentations which the claimant has had no opportunity to respond to, and also contains doctored “evidence”;

• The allegations regarding interactions between the claimant and administrative staff were not subject to investigation;

• The investigators of at least the last grievance investigation and the misconduct screening investigation ignored substantial evidence provided by the claimant;

• The claimant had been denied access to documents required as evidence for his defence including the lab-books and animal experimental records of Drs Karapinar and Eickelbeck and Mr Sintez Rodriguez San Pedro, as well as his own personal data;

[4]It was clear that the allegations against the claimant had not been subject to any proper investigation such as required by the Respondent’s Disciplinary Ordinance;

[5]It would not have been possible for the claimant to properly address the panel on all relevant matters;

[6]The volume of information which the investigator would be required to assimilate and the importance of the concerns raised by the claimant in these investigations were such that it was not appropriate for the investigation to be carried out by a member of Imperial staff;

[7]The claimant complained of flawed investigation carried out by staff at the highest level of College governance (Central Secretariat);

[8]Lies were told against the claimant by a senior member of the College management;

[9]There was evidence that the claimant’s Head of Department coached witnesses against him;

[10]There was evidence that these disciplinary proceedings had come about as a deliberate result of the last two investigations. e. PD5: email of 18 September 2022 to Professor Steven Warren substantiating the allegation that Dr David Bernal-Casas’s claims that C’s and Dr Song’s work was “his ideas, text and figures” constituted research misconduct, and that research misconduct was being covered up. 2. If so, in doing so, did C make any disclosure which qualifies for protection for the purposes of s.43B ERA 1996? In particular:a. Did C disclose information;

b. Did C have a reasonable belief that any disclosure relied upon tended to show one or more relevant failures falling within s.43B(1) ERA 1996, namely a criminal offence/fraud in respect of PD1, and in relation to all the PDs: breach of legal obligation, miscarriage of justice and that information tending to show any of the above has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed

c. Did C have a reasonable belief that any such disclosure was made in the public interest? The public interest/s in respect of which the Claimant contends that his PDs were made are as follows: PD1: financial fraud in a public institution is in the public interest PD2 trust in and credibility of science is in the public interest PD3 it is in the public interest to know when academics are lied about and smeared in a public institution PD4 it is in the public interest that problems within a prominent academic institution should be properly addressed and resolved so as not to damage the reputation of the institution through reports in social media etc PD5: same as PD2 3. If so, was the reason (or if more than one, the principal reason) for dismissal that C made a protected disclosure(s)? Unlawful detriment contrary to s.47B ERA 1996 4. Did C make protected disclosures as above? 5. If so, was C subjected to any detriment as follows: a. PD1: i. Dr Watkins’ email of 24 September 2019, by which he said that the phrase “gross administrative negligence” was not appropriate; and “this could be construed as a serious allegation against a member of staff and could potentially have repercussions” ii. Prof Matthews’ statement of 5 February 2021, in which he said: “…, TK alleged mishandling of NIH funds by the college in a long email exchange in which TK repeatedly used inappropriate language and made claims that ultimately were not upheld by independent College administrative review. In addition, without evidence, TK sent emails claiming fraudulent practices by members of College administrative staff regarding related issues to NIH (USA), the funders. This went on around the time of August 2016 and April 2020. PM noted that Scott Wheatley (SW – Head of Grants), Anna McCloud (AM) and Ann Kelly (AK – Head of Employee Relations) all were made aware of these problems or involved in the internal review.” iii. After the claimant expressed that he felt bullied and harassed by administration regarding the financial and fund management matters, the claimant was accused of bullying administrative staff. Examples of the claimant’s expression of feeling bullied by administration was used as evidence by HR (Maria Langton nee Lynch) and the Respondent’s Management team (Professors Anthony Newman Taylor and Liz Lightstone) to support this accusation against him throughout the disciplinary process (September 2021 to March 2023) iv. The claimant’s concerns regarding financial irregularity were considered as bullying behaviour and used as key evidence in a justification for the Claimant’s dismissal (in the dismissal letter issued on 17 November 2022) b. PD2: i. Mr Neilson failing to investigate an allegation of dissemination of confidential information after 8 January 2021 ii. By emails of 15 December 2021 and 8 January 2021, Mr Neilson investigating research misconduct as part of an investigation into C depriving C from right to appeal as to R’s procedures. iii. Mr Neilson initially agreed in email dated 8 January 2021 that there will be an investigation on the external dissemination of confidential internal information as well as research funding disinformation to Dr David Bernal-Casas, after Professor Bangham’s investigation had been completed, but no such investigation took place. iv. On 18 July 2022, the chair of the disciplinary hearing panel (Prof Liz Lightstone) suggesting that the claimant “misappropriated the work of DBC [Dr Bernal-Casas]” despite the allegation having already been investigated and dismissed v. Professor Liz Lightstone stating in a dismissal letter on 17 November 2022 that C’s request for an investigation into his concerns represents his inappropriate behaviour and using that as justification for dismissal c. PD3 i. The Research Misconduct Response Group ignoring C’s statements in PD3, namely that: 1. confidential internal information was leaked to external party; 2. the Investigator Professor Charles Bangham misrepresented the situation by claiming that the claimant had been successful in obtaining research funding which Dr David Bernal-Casas could have profited from, despite the claimant’s repeated clarifications that no such funding existed ii. Mr John Hancock writing to Dr David Bernal-Casas (on 19 March 2021) repeating the factually incorrect claim that the claimant had received funding from UK Medical Research Council and expressed their regret that they have no mechanisms to help DBC benefiting from the claimant’s research grant. This led to Dr David Bernal-Casas subsequently complaining against the claimant to the UK Medical Research Council, damaging the claimant’s reputation iii. On 17 March 2021, Mr Hancock informing Professor Jonathan Weber that there would be a disciplinary hearing against C, which letter contained “disinformation”, namely that the claimant had received funding that Dr David Bernal-Casas could have profited from, and that Dr David Bernal-Casas held intellectual property rights over the claimant’s laboratory’s work and ideas iv. On 1 October 2021, as part of the materials for the Disciplinary hearing, a revised version of Professor Charles Bangham investigation outcome letter was provided to the claimant. Untrue claims were retained despite the claimant’s complaints, and the investigation conclusion was topped-up with a formal allegation of misconduct v. Professor Liz Lightstone stating during the disciplinary hearing session on 18 July 2022 that C had misappropriated work of others without consideration of the factual evidence, and claiming in the disciplinary hearing outcome letter (17 November 2022) that the claimant’s resistance to factually demonstrably false allegations as lack of remorse

d. PD4: i. Denying C a “fair hearing” by the Respondent – acting through Ann Kelly on 15 October 2021 – . she ignored PD4. She should have held a proper investigation into the matters raised in PD4 before proceeding with the disciplinary hearing but failed to do so, denying the claimant a fair investigation into the allegations raised against the claimant ii. The Respondent – acting through Professor Liz Lightstone in her dismissal outcome letter issued on 17 November 2022 – citing the request for a fair investigation (with specific reference to this PD letter) as a lack of cooperation and inappropriate behaviour to justify dismissal 6. If so, was that done on the ground that C had made a protected disclosure(s)? Unfair dismissal contrary to s94 and 98 ERA 98 7. Was C dismissed for a potentially fair reason, namely conduct? 8. Did R act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating it as a sufficient reason to dismiss C? The Claimant relies on the following incidents of unfairness: a. That evidence was fabricated or the result of forgery and evidence was omitted/ignored/supressed in the Grievance Investigation and the Research Misconduct investigation as well as in the Disciplinary procedure. b. The dismissal was justified by allegations for which C was not given the opportunity to defend himself and allegations that were clearly fabricated and inconsistent with factual evidence. c. The persons undertaking the Grievance Investigation and the Research Misconduct investigation as well as in the Disciplinary meeting showed clear bias and had a hidden agenda. d. The Respondent did not follow their own ordinances (Grievance Procedure as per PD4) when conducting grievance investigations and disciplinary hearings (Disciplinary Procedure …for example because the Chair Lightstone reached conclusions before allowing C1 to defend himself - by treating the grievance process as conclusive and not listening to Cs complaints about it) and did not comply with generally accepted standards on these procedures.

e. Dishonest witness statements were relied upon by the Respondent, and the investigators and hearing panel (all Respondent’s employees) made no reasonable/substantial efforts to reveal the factual truth. Time limits 9. Are any of the detriment claims outside the primary time limit? 10. If so, are they part of a series of acts or omissions the last of which is inside the primary time limit?

[11]If not, was it reasonably practicable to bring those claims in time?

[12]If not, within what further period was it reasonable to bring the claims? Remedy issues (to be determined at liability hearing)

[13]Would C’s employment have terminated in any event?

[14]Did C contribute to his dismissal? Appendix Two List of Issues – Doctor Song

[1]Unfair dismissal 1.1. Was the claimant dismissed? 1.1.1. Did the respondent do the following things: 1.1.1.1. Failing adequately to investigate the matters raised in her complaint of 25 June 2021 and in the investigation thereof. In particular, C relies on the allegation that: 1.1.1.1.1. Professor Muggeridge omitted evidence C submitted during the investigation, and that such omission was deliberate; 1.1.1.1.2. Professor Muggeridge failed to interview the witnesses C named; 1.1.1.1.3. Professor Muggeridge chose to believe Professor Matthews’s claims 1.1.1.1.4. HR failed to provide C with meeting notes of her interview with Professor Muggeridge to C until eight months after the interview took place; 1.1.1.1.5. Professor Muggeridge failed to investigate C’s concerns about breaches of confidence; 1.1.1.2. Allegations made by Professor Lightstone’s against C in formal letters sent to those who participated in Professor Knopfel’s first disciplinary hearing 1.1.1.3. Failing to investigate concerns raised by C about Professor Lightstone’s behaviour in breach of its zerotolerance policy; 1.1.1.4. Acting (through Professor Lightstone) so as to deter C from continuing to act for Professor Knopfel; 1.1.1.5. Failing to conclude its investigation into this complaint until after C’s resignation (nearly eighteen months after the complaint was made) 1.1.2. Did that breach the implied term of trust and confidence? The Tribunal will need to decide: 1.1.2.1. whether the respondent behaved in a way that was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between the claimant and the respondent; and 1.1.2.2. whether it had reasonable and proper cause for doing so. 1.1.3. Did the claimant resign in response to the breach? The Tribunal will need to decide whether the breach of contract was a reason for the claimant’s resignation. 1.1.4. Did the claimant affirm the contract before resigning? The Tribunal will need to decide whether the claimant’s words or actions showed that they chose to keep the contract alive even after the breach. 1.2. If the claimant was constructively dismissed, what was the reason or principal reason for dismissal? 1.3. Was it a potentially fair reason? 1.4. Did the respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating it as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant? 1.5. Was the reason or principal reason for dismissal that the claimant made a protected disclosure or because the claimant carried out a protected act when she accompanied her colleague, Professor Knopfel to a disciplinary hearing? If so, the claimant will be regarded as unfairly dismissed.

[2]Remedy for unfair dismissal 2.1. Does the claimant wish to be reinstated to their previous employment? 2.2. Does the claimant wish to be re-engaged to comparable employment or other suitable employment? 2.3. Should the Tribunal order reinstatement? The Tribunal will consider in particular whether reinstatement is practicable and, if the claimant caused or contributed to dismissal, whether it would be just. 2.4. Should the Tribunal order re-engagement? The Tribunal will consider in particular whether re-engagement is practicable and, if the claimant caused or contributed to dismissal, whether it would be just. 2.5. What should the terms of the re-engagement order be? 2.6. If there is a compensatory award, how much should it be? The Tribunal will decide: 2.6.1. What financial losses has the dismissal caused the claimant? 2.6.2. Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace their lost earnings, for example by looking for another job? 2.6.3. If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be compensated? 2.7. Is there a chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed, or for some other reason? 2.8. If so, should the claimant’s compensation be reduced? By how much? 2.9. Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply? Did the respondent or the claimant unreasonably fail to comply with it by [specify alleged breach]? 2.10. If so is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any award payable to the claimant? By what proportion, up to 25%? 2.11. If the claimant was unfairly dismissed, did s/he cause or contribute to dismissal by blameworthy conduct? 2.12. If so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s compensatory award? By what proportion? 2.13. Does the statutory cap of fifty-two weeks’ pay or [£86,444] apply? 2.14. What basic award is payable to the claimant, if any? 2.15. Would it be just and equitable to reduce the basic award because of any conduct of the claimant before the dismissal? If so, to what extent?

[3]Protected disclosure 3.1. Did the claimant make one or more qualifying disclosures as defined in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996? The Tribunal will decide: 3.1.1. What did the claimant say or write? When? To whom? The claimant says she made disclosures on these occasions: 3.1.1.1. In the claimant’s written complaint of 25 June 2021, did the claimant allege that: 3.1.1.1.1. colleagues had been responsible for breaches of confidence in providing a confidential internal draft application to Dr David Bernal Casas without the Claimant’s knowledge or permission. The Claimant reasonably believed this breached the Respondent’s legal obligations “related to data protection and confidentiality of personal data and / or scientific research, and / or the contractual term of trust and confidence related to the release of this research data and personal information which had an expectation of confidentiality by the Claimant under her contract of employment and the expected standards within the scientific community; 3.1.1.1.2. a colleague, Marcos Sintes, who was engaged in an in vivo study involving experimental mice ceased to attend the laboratory, neglected their duties without notification and became unresponsive to communication. Such behaviour amounted to serious research misconduct contrary to the responsibilities of a Home Office Personal Licence holder. The Claimant reasonably believed this amounted to a breach of legal obligations of a Home Office Personal Licence Holder under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Claimant reasonably believed these breaches also amounted to a criminal offence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; 3.1.1.1.3. when she raised this concern with her Head of Department (HOD), she was “faced with a light dismissal and inaction”, which constituted “professional negligence of the HoD in maintaining research integrity, which could lead to severe damage to the College, should research integrity still be one of the values of the College and an expectation of the College’s funders”. The Claimant reasonably believed the Respondent’s inaction amounted to a breach of legal obligations under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. In her complaint of 25 June 2021, the Claimant reasserted these breaches of legal obligations and criminal offences above and also raised her reasonable belief that these breaches/ offences were being deliberately concealed; 3.1.1.1.4. her HOD and the Respondent’s HR function had “effectively endorsed low standards in animal experiments” when the Claimant had raised concerns that a colleague did not have the necessary experience of animal surgery required to discharge their functions in the laboratory, and that this had “potential detrimental consequences to the research integrity promoted by the College”. The Claimant reasonably believed the Respondent’s inaction amounted to a breach of legal obligations under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; 3.1.1.1.5. there was administrative malpractice on the part of the Respondent’s staff in relation to the management of BRAIN Initiative research grants provided by the US National Institute of Health which had “led to recurrent damage to the research activity, international reputation, and wellbeing of our laboratory”. The Claimant reasonably believed this amounted to a breach of legal obligations under the BRAIN Initiative research grants from the US National Institute of Health (NIH). The Claimant also reasonably believed this amounted to a criminal offence, namely fraud; 3.1.1.1.6. previous named staff in her Department had also raised concerns about “a toxic environment and institutional malpractice”, the claimant providing an example a public domain posting by Dr Rob Leech in December 2018 who claimed that he had “raised issues [...], encountered constant denial and resistance” and that it was “[t]he most corrosive environment I have worked in’. 3.1.2. Did she disclose information? 3.1.3. Did she believe the disclosure of information was made in the public interest? 3.1.4. Was that belief reasonable? 3.1.5. Did she believe it tended to show that: 3.1.5.1. a criminal offence had been was being or was likely to be committed; 3.1.5.2. a person had failed, was failing or was likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation; 3.1.5.3. information tending to show any of these things had been, was being or was likely to be deliberately concealed. 3.1.6. Was that belief reasonable? 3.2. If the claimant made a qualifying disclosure, it was a protected disclosure because it was made to the claimant’s employer or other responsible person. If so, it was a protected disclosure.

[4]Detriment (Employment Rights Act 1996 section 48) 4.1. Did the respondent do the following things: 4.1.1. Failing adequately to investigate the matters raised in her complaint of 25 June 2021 and in the investigation thereof. In particular, C relies on the allegation that: 4.1.1.1. Professor Muggeridge omitted evidence C submitted during the investigation, and that such omission was deliberate; 4.1.1.2. Professor Muggeridge failed to interview the witnesses C named; 4.1.1.3. Professor Muggeridge chose to believe Professor Matthews’s claims 4.1.1.4. HR failed to provide C with meeting notes of her interview with Professor Muggeridge to C until eight months after the interview took place; 4.1.1.5. Professor Muggeridge failed to investigate C’s concerns about breaches of confidence; 4.1.2. Failing to conclude its investigation into this complaint until after C’s resignation (nearly eighteen months after the complaint was made); 4.2. By doing so, did it subject the claimant to detriment? 4.3. If so, was it done on the ground that she made a protected disclosure

[5]Remedy for Protected Disclosure Detriment 5.1. What financial losses has the detrimental treatment caused the claimant? 5.2. Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace their lost earnings, for example by looking for another job? 5.3. If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be compensated? 5.4. What injury to feelings has the detrimental treatment caused the claimant and how much compensation should be awarded for that? 5.5. Has the detrimental treatment caused the claimant personal injury and how much compensation should be awarded for that? 5.6. Is it just and equitable to award the claimant other compensation? 5.7. Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply? 5.8. Did the respondent or the claimant unreasonably fail to comply with it? 5.9. If so, is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any award payable to the claimant? By what proportion, up to 25%? 5.10. Did the claimant cause or contribute to the detrimental treatment by their own actions and if so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s compensation? By what proportion? 5.11. Was the protected disclosure made in good faith? 5.12. If not, is it just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s compensation? By what proportion, up to 25%?

[6]Detriment Employment Relations Act 1999 (section 12) 6.1. Did the Claimant carry the following protected act 6.1.1. Accompanied a colleague, Professor Knopfel to a disciplinary hearing? 6.2. Did the respondent do the following things: 6.2.1. Allegations made by Professor Lightstone against C in formal letters sent to those who participated in Professor Knopfel’s first disciplinary hearing; 6.2.2. failing to investigate concerns raised by C about Professor Lightstone’s behaviour in breach of its zero-tolerance policy; 6.2.3. acting (through Professor Lightstone) so as to deter C from continuing to act for Professor Knopfel; 6.2.4. continued claims by Professor Lightstone denouncing C after C resigned from participating in the disciplinary process despite C having informed Professor Lightstone that her claims were causing C distress. 6.3. Was the reason for the detriments the protected act?

[7]Remedy for s.12 Employment Relations Act 1999 Detriment 7.1. What financial losses has the detrimental treatment caused the claimant? 7.2. Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace their lost earnings, for example by looking for another job? 7.3. If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be compensated? 7.4. What injury to feelings has the detrimental treatment caused the claimant and how much compensation should be awarded for that? 7.5. Has the detrimental treatment caused the claimant personal injury and how much compensation should be awarded for that? 7.6. Is it just and equitable to award the claimant other compensation? 7.7. Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply? 7.8. Did the respondent or the claimant unreasonably fail to comply with it? 7.9. If so, is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any award payable to the claimant? By what proportion, up to 25%? 7.10. Did the claimant cause or contribute to the detrimental treatment by their own actions and if so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s compensation? By what proportion?