Dr A Riat v Dr A Walling and Dr S Nathan T/a Ashfield Medical Centre and Ms M Guilfoyle: 6023144/2024 and 6012330/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6023144/2024, 6012330/2025
Between
Dr A RiatClaimantDr A Walling and Dr S Nathan T/a Ashfield Medical Centre and Ms M GuilfoyleRespondent
Before
Employment Judge ArmstrongMr S Roxborough for respondentDate 15 June 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of pregnancy and maternity discrimination is not wellfounded and is dismissed.[2]The complaint of victimisation is not well-founded and is dismissed.[3]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded and succeeds against the first respondent. The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent.[4]The Tribunal has considered whether compensation ought to be reduced to reflect the chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event and declines to do so.[5]The remaining issues in respect of remedy are listed for a further hearing on 24 September 2026 at 10.00am with a time estimate of three hours. Approved by: Employment Judge Armstrong 15 June 2026 Amended under Rule 67 ET Rules 2024 on 1 July 2026 Notes Full reasons were given orally at the hearing. Written full reasons will not be provided unless requested by any party at the hearing, or by a written request received by the Tribunal within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written full reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s). If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ JUDGMENT was sent to the parties on 16 June 2026, full oral reasons having been given at the hearing, and full reasons were requested in accordance with Rule 60 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules. The following written full reasons are therefore provided: FULL REASONS - LIABILITY Claims[1]The claimant brings the following claims: 1.1. Maternity discrimination against both respondents; 1.2. Victimisation against both respondents; 1.3. Unfair dismissal against the first respondent. Conduct of the hearing[2]Evidence and submissions were heard over four days; oral judgment with full reasons was handed down on the fifth day of the hearing.[3]Ms Pnaiser represented the claimant as a lay representative. She is a qualified solicitor but was not acting in that capacity at this hearing. Mr Roxborough of counsel represented both respondents. I am grateful to both representatives for the way in which they have conducted the hearing which was proportionate and relevant to the issues, and allowed liability to be dealt with within the listed time.[4]The claimant indicated a possible need for breaks. We took regular breaks throughout the hearing. Issues for the Tribunal to decide[5]The issues for the Tribunal to decide are set out at 89-92 in the bundle, as determined at a case management hearing on 21 October 2026, supplemented by further information as to the particulars of detriment (directed at that hearing) at 74-76. This was confirmed with the parties at the outset of the hearing and the list of issues was referred to throughout and in closing submissions. Evidence[6]The Tribunal had in evidence a bundle of documents comprising 661 pages. This includes a further two pages presented by the claimant at the start of the hearing, which were the details of her first claim which had been omitted from the bundle in error; and four further pages adduced by the respondent without objection from the claimant in the course of the hearing, which were some pages of email chains which had been omitted from the bundle. Page references in bold refer to this bundle.[7]I heard witness evidence from claimant, and Dr Clare Devlin (medicolegal consultant, Medical Protection Society), Peter Jackson (British Medical Association) and Dr Sylvia Twine (GP) on her behalf. Dr Devlin and Dr Twine appeared following witness orders and I am grateful for their attendance. All provided witness statements in advance save for Dr Twine. Ms Pnaiser helpfully reduced her evidence into a witness statement on the day she attended, which Dr Twine confirmed in oral evidence and slightly expanded upon.[8]On behalf of the respondents I heard evidence from Ms Guilfoyle (practice manager), Ms Stephanie Sheppard (business and development manager, Cross Gates PCN), Dr Nathan and Dr Walling (partners).[9]All witnesses confirmed their evidence on oath / under affirmation and answered questions in cross-examination. Findings of fact[10]The claimant commenced employment with the first respondent (R1) on 17 August 2022 as a General Practitioner (GP). It is not disputed and I accept that from the date of her interview it was the understanding of all parties that she intended to qualify as a GP trainer and that the practice was supportive of that.[11]The claimant discovered that she was pregnant between interview and accepting employment. She asked if R1 would provide maternity pay although she would not qualify as she did not have sufficient service. I note that she had previously worked as a locum at the practice. R1 agreed to do this, although with the proviso that the claimant would repay the maternity pay if she left employment within a year thereafter. The claimant readily acknowledges that the practice were supportive of her at the outset of her employment, and supportive of her maternity leave, including sending her a gift when her baby was born.[12]At the time of employment she was provided with an employee handbook. There are two versions in the bundle. One is shorter than the other. The claimant’s evidence is that she was provided with the shorter one. Nobody has been able to tell me what the differences are or why they might be significant to this case. The respondents’ witnesses could not explain why there were two versions. On a brief look a lot of the differences are to do with formatting – there are more page breaks and a larger typeface which probably accounts for most of the difference in volume. However there are also some changes to content – e.g. the contents list differs slightly and some wording has been changed.[13]On 12 December 2022 Dr Sylvia Twine was offered employment with R1. I have seen an unsigned contract at 277 and correspondence at 268. It is asserted by the claimant that R1 made a contractual commitment to Dr Twine to support her to become a GP trainer. I am not satisfied this is the case. Dr Twine herself in her witness statement does not state this. She says that there was an agreement at interview later confirmed in emails. This would put her on the same footing as the claimant. That is what the respondents’ witnesses say.[14]The claimant says we have not seen Dr Twine’s signed contract so I should infer from that that she had a contract containing that commitment. I do not make that inference. The only evidence that there was a commitment is the claimant’s witness statement at para 4.3. This is the claimant’s recollection of a verbal conversation and is not corroborated by Dr Twine who was the other party to that conversation.[15]There is also mention in the claimant’s witness statement of the rate that Dr Twine was paid but in oral evidence she accepted that everyone was put onto that rate so I do not consider that this helps her case.[16]I accept that the commitment to Dr Twine and the claimant was the same. Neither were contractual commitments.[17]The process for becoming a GP trainer was explained to me by the claimant and Dr Walling. Their evidence was consistent. I do not need to set it out in detail but in essence a GP first completes training themselves to become a trainer. This stage does not involve having a trainee. Then once they have completed various courses, they can take on a trainee. There is a requirement for support of the GP’s practice to get onto the courses. They would then need the support and formal agreement of the practice and the deanery (the provider of the ‘academic’ or ‘theoretical’ training) in order to actually be allocated a trainee. These are two distinct parts.[18]The claimant commenced maternity leave on 30 January 2023 (48). I was told that she also took some maternity-related sick leave before then but in any event she was on maternity leave by January 2023. Her maternity leave concluded in November 2023 and she then used accrued annual leave until she returned to work on 3 January 2024 (48, claimant witness statement para 3.1).[19]On 11 December 2023 the claimant had a return to work meeting with the second respondent (R2). It is not controversial that at that meeting the claimant becoming a GP trainer was discussed. She was evidently keen to do this and I have no difficulty accepting that. It was agreed that Ms Guilfoyle would look at arranging a meeting for the claimant with Dr Walling to discuss how to progress that in the new year (313).[20]On 3 January 2024 the claimant returned to work, working Wednesdays and Fridays.[21]On 5 January 2024 the claimant had a conversation with Dr Walling. The claimant alleges that this marked the beginning of a shift in attitude from him. I do not accept this. In oral evidence the claimant accepted that at the time she thought it was a normal meeting. Dr Walling’s evidence in cross-examination was clear on this - he also thought it was a normal meeting. There was some discussion of the claimant becoming a GP trainer, and Dr Walling encouraged the claimant to wait until she had settled back into practice. I do not accept that this was because Dr Waling had already decided that the claimant would not become a GP trainer, because he had recruited Dr Twine. This was put to him in cross-examination and I accept his denial of this as genuine.[22]On return to work, the claimant was suffering with pregnancy-related lateral epicondylitis – also referred to in the documents as repetitive strain injury or tennis elbow - essentially pain in her right arm. This impacted her ability to do the elements of her job which involved typing or using a mouse. There is no suggestion that it affected her ability to assess or treat patients.[23]On 8 January 2024 when the claimant had been back a week she emailed Ms Guilfoyle. She stated that she had had a positive first week but was having some difficulties as a result of her condition and requested a desk assessment. She also suggested a different mouse, a wrist support for typing, a different chair with a footstool, and ‘lexacom’ dictation device. On the same day Ms Guilfoyle replied agreeing to arrange a desk assessment with Occupational Health and offering to provide a mouse and chair. She asked the claimant what type she suggested, to see if there was one already available in the practice. She said ‘lexacom’ should be in all rooms and she would check that, as well as setting up a licence so the claimant could use her mobile phone for dictation if necessary. That afternoon a mouse was ordered for the claimant and she was to try some of the chairs at another site. A licence for ‘lexacom’ was updated on 9 Jan (307-09). On 9 January 2024 Ms Guilfoyle made a referral to Occupational Health for an assessment (297-304),[24]The claimant attended work the following week, working until 12 January 2024 (claimant witness statement). On 18 January 2024 she contacted Ms Guilfoyle stating she would be off that week and the next week at least. She suggested dragon software, a different mouse, consistency of being in the same room, and continuing to use wrist support. She said using Siri to dictate an email had worked well (314).[25]On 22 January 2024 Ms Guilfoyle replied stating that the cost of dragon software was not reasonable without guarantees it would help but that they would keep it under review. She suggested that the claimant continue to use the mouse that had been provided pending Occupational Health recommendations. The claimant replied acknowledging and stated she understood, also attaching a fit note which she said covered to 31 January (315-6).[26]On 28 January 2024 an Occupational Health report was provided (317-8). Ms Guilfoyle said in oral evidence that she received a text message and an email with a link from the Occupational Health provider. She was able to sign into the provider’s portal and download the report. This is significant in terms of later events. The Occupational Health provider recommended that the claimant remain off work until two weeks after a steroid injection, then a phased return to work starting with two hours per day for a week or two, then if she copes well to return to full hours. She recommended the claimant be allowed to use same consulting room each time, and a workstation assessment, to include in particular an adjustable chair, and footrest. Finally she recommended a right-handed setup, and consideration of dragon software.[27]On 9 February 2024 the claimant received a fit note. She was not fit to work until 26 February 2024 due to lateral epicondylitis (265). On the same date she attended for the first health review meeting with Ms Guilfoyle (319). The tone of the minutes is supportive and positive and the clamant accepted this in evidence. Ms Guilfoyle says the practice is unable to facilitate a phased return as per the report because of the need to source and fund locums. In the alternative she suggested that the claimant do two hours per day at home – making clear this should not be on her non-working days. Dragon software was again refused but Ms Guilfoyle said she would look at funding. Ms Guilfoyle suggested some mental health support as the claimant was struggling with not feeling herself and feeling guilty for not working. Both agreed to review again on 21 February 2024.[28]On 21 February 2024 there was another health review meeting (320). Again this seems positive. Things are improving. The claimant has been building up and felt ready to come back to work on 26 February 2024. Ms Guilfoyle says to push it back ‘a week’ due to annual leave of other staff, so that the claimant would not be in the practice without support. The meeting concluded with a plan that she would come back on 6 March with shorter clinics. There was a suggestion in the course of evidence that it was unreasonable of the respondents to delay her coming back and this was deliberate. I do not accept that suggestion. It seems reasonable and supportive given the occupational health recommendations. The claimant is critical of the respondent for not providing a phased return but also critical of them for delaying her return.[29]On 26 February 2024 the claimant provided a fit note stating she was not fit to work because of lateral epicondylitis until 4 March 2024 (264).[30]A telephone review took place on 4 March 2024 (321). Ms Guilfoyle and the partners were back from annual leave. Rather than the claimant starting work straight away, a return to work date of 13 March 2024 was agreed. The claimant was to provide the mouse she had been using at home which was suitable. ‘Blocks’ would be added into her clinic so that some slots would be unavailable, so that the claimant would have a rest between patients. A foot stall would be arranged. The claimant was to try the new chairs at the Grange (R1’s other site). She would carry out CPD on her first morning to allow her to settle. Again, the minutes sounds positive.[31]I heard oral evidence about the blocks and whether it was reasonable. I am satisfied that the procedure for the blocks was done reasonably – because of the fact that it worked and she did return to work and overcome the lateral epicondylitis issues.[32]In Ms Gulifoyle’s witness statement (para 17) she says on 5 March 2024 the claimant emailed her with table summarising the requirements for becoming a GP trainer and saying she was enthusiastic to progress with it. I am satisfied and find that the date of 5 March is wrong. In that paragraph she gives the page reference of 348, which is that email. The email was sent on 26 March 2026. It was put to Ms Guilfoyle that she had deliberately fabricated an email of 5 March in order to manipulate the timeline and make it appear as though a discussion had taken place about capacity for R1 to have a GP trainee at an earlier date.[33]I am not satisfied that this is a lie. Firstly, If it is then it is not a very sophisticated one, seeing as Ms Guilfoyle specifically refers to an email in the bundle which is clearly dated 26 March 2024 within the same paragraph that she says it was on 5 March 2024. Secondly, I don’t see how it would help the respondents either way. The claimant says, ‘aha well it’s because Ms Guilfoyle says at paragraph 18 that she discussed the email after the board meeting on 20 March’. But it could have been discussed after the board meeting whether the email was sent on 5 or 26 March. Ms Guilfoyle does not say it was discussed on the same day.[34]I am satisfied that Ms Guilfoyle has made a mistake about the date of that email. It should have been picked up before it was put into a witness statement but that does not mean that it is a fabrication.[35]On 6 March 2024 the claimant submitted a fit note that she was unfit to work until 11 March 2024 due to lateral epicondylitis (263).[36]On 13 March 2024 the claimant returned to work (claimant witness statement para 5.2). She had been on sick leave since 12 January 2024 i.e. two months at that point.[37]The claimant says and I accept that she was provided with a right-sided set up, but that this was not always made available to her easily, and on occasions had to ask other colleagues to move from a room in which they were already set up. I also pause to note at this stage that Dr Twine used a standing desk. In her witness statement she confirms this, and states that it was not provided specifically for her.[38]On 15 March 2024 the claimant spoke to Ms Guilfoyle. It is accepted that a conversation took place and it was broadly as recorded at 322. Ms Guilfoyle and the claimant agree that it was an informal catch up. The claimant objects to the fact that a record of the conversation has been produced and this is part of her victimisation claim. Ms Guilfoyle’s evidence was that she kept a note of it for her own reference after they had spoken – because there were things she had to do that the claimant had requested. I accept that explanation – she specifically notes that she has to order a footstool.[39]In oral evidence the claimant said for the first time that Ms Guilfoyle slammed down her keyboard in the course of this exchange. I do not accept that evidence. It was raised late in the proceedings and not included in her witness statement.[40]On 20 March 2024 a meeting of the Primary Care Network took place. This is an organisation of (at the time) 4 GP surgeries providing primary care (i.e. general practice) services within the local area. At that meeting it was discussed that R1 did not have any additional clinical space available at the time for ‘health and well-being co-ordinators’ although they possibly had some small non-clinical space available (326) – these minutes were not challenged and I accept them. The meeting is also set out in Dr Walling’s statement.[41]As set out above, on 26 March 2024 the claimant emailed Ms Guilfoyle about the GP training. She herself acknowledges that there was a delay between her sending that email and a preceding conversation with Dr Walling (351). This included a specific request for a day of training on 24 April 2025 of ‘educational theory’ – part of the GP trainer training (348, 352, 660).[42]On 5 April 2024 Ms Guilfoyle sent a Microsoft Teams message to Dr Walling (612) asking him to look at the email and ‘let me know your thoughts please’. Dr Walling’s response was as follows: ‘Tricky one, I think we need to reply saying we are happy she is able to complete the trainer training and use her CPD to achieve this but unfortunately as a practice we are at capacity for rooms…(redacted third party information)... we are unlikely to be able to support her taking a trainee on in the practice as we do not have the capacity for 3 trainees currently.’[43]I note that Dr Walling states that there is no capacity for three trainees at the moment, not three trainers. He had two trainees.[44]This message was disclosed to the claimant as part of a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) in August/September 2024. She was very upset by it and sees it as part of a pattern of the respondents, driven by Dr Walling, deliberately concocting an excuse for withdrawing support for her becoming a GP trainer.[45]Dr Walling and Ms Guilfoyle both say that there was a conversation between them after the PCN meeting to the effect that due to the lack of clinical room availability the practice was unable to take on additional trainees. It was put to them that this did not take place but they were both consistent that there was a conversation about this between them. They were unclear on the exact timing but both stated they did not mean that it happened immediately after the PCN meeting. I accept that they did have a conversation about this, and that it was triggered by the conversation at the PCN about clinical space.[46]It is consistent and sensible that a lack of clinical space would impact on ability to take on trainees. Dr Walling told me and it was not challenged that trainee GPs after a very short space of time will be seeing patients independently – they therefore clearly will need a clinical room to do this. There is no evidence that there was in fact a spare clinical room in the premises at the time. The claimant does not make such an assertion. Dr Walling gave clear evidence about the room utilisation across R1's two premises. At The Grange there would usually be the on call doctor in a non-clinical room, then a physician associate, nurse practitioner, PCN nurse, GP trainees and Foundation Year two doctor in the clinical rooms. At Ashfield Medical Centre the rooms were occupied by ‘clinical doctors’. Dr Walling had responsibility for two trainees at the time.[47]I accept that Dr Walling and Ms Guilfoyle discussed the impact that the lack of clinical space would have on the ability to accommodate trainees between the PCN meeting on 20 March and the claimant’s email being responded to on 5 April 2026.[48]The claimant relies on a difference in the way the situation was communicated to her and Dr Twine, and a subsequent difference in the respondents’ attitude towards them with regards to the training. I deal with the communications with the claimant first.[49]On 5 April 2024 Ms Guilfoyle replied to the claimant’s email of 26 March 2024 (350). Ms Guilfoyle apologises for delay and states that she had to discuss the request with Dr Walling. Again, this is consistent with my finding that they had a discussion between 20 March and 5 Aprill. She then states (emphasis added): ‘We are happy that you are able to complete the trainer training and use your CPD to achieve this but unfortunately as a practice we are at capacity for rooms and with other clinicians requests for support with this which has been formally agreed by the practice, we are unlikely to be able to support you currently in being able to take further trainees on in the practice as we do not have the capacity for trainees currently beyond our allocation. We hope that in the future this is something we can consider, and we hope you understand our position on this at the moment.’[50]Ms Guilfoyle goes on to set out how the respondent could accommodate the claimant’s CPD to enable her to take time as a chunk – i.e. to enable her to complete a number of full days of CPD as set out in her email of 26 April 2024. Usually CPD was accommodated by a number of hours per week therefore this would need to be rearranged to enable her to attend those full days.[51]It is accepted that the claimant’s request to complete GP trainer training on 24 April 2024 (contained in the request of 26 March 2024) was, in fact, accommodated, as borne out in the diary entry at 658.[52]The claimant was, I accept, very concerned at the statement in in the email that R1 was unable to support her, effectively as well as ‘other clinicians requests for support with this which has been formally agreed.’ I can understand why she would be concerned at the suggestion that someone else had been prioritised. I have no difficulty in accepting Ms Guilfoyle’s evidence that she now regrets the way in which she worded this email. Ms Guilfoyle’s evidence is that no formal commitment had in fact been made to anyone else (which I have accepted was the case). She denied that the driver for the email was that a commitment had already been made to Dr Twine.[53]On 9 April 2024 the claimant responded to the email (350). This email is said to be a protected act. It is clear that when it was sent she had in mind her earlier conversation with Dr Twine and the (I accept genuine) impression she had that a commitment had been made to Dr Twine. She clearly, I accept, was concerned that Dr Twine’s career progression in becoming a GP trainer had been prioritised over her own.[54]She thanks Ms Guilfoyle for her comments regarding the CPD. She then goes on to state: ‘I'm disappointed to read in the e-mail that the practice has formally agreed support for another clinician to practise as a GP trainer and whilst I was on maternity leave. I made clear in my interview with Michaella and Sarah in 2022 that I intend to become a GP trainer and how important this was to me. The practice gave verbal commitment to me becoming a trainer in the interview and subsequent conversations. Between 2022 and now I wasn't given any information on the process of formalising me practising as a GP trainer. I assume that this was an oversight during the hiring process of the other clinician and that you would give the same opportunities to all clinicians wanting to become a trainer. I want to feel valued and considered. What would help is an explanation about why I wasn't updated between formalising your support for another clinician and your email 5/4/24, an acknowledgement that this was not timely about a decision that impacts me and an acknowledgement and explanation about why another clinician was given the opportunity to formalise practising as a trainer over me.’[55]She goes on to set out some potential resolutions e.g. sharing a trainee, review of room scheduling and so on.[56]The respondents dispute that this was a protected act and I return to this in my conclusions below.[57]In a similar timeframe, there were communications between the respondents and Dr Twine about her GP trainer training.[58]Dr Twine had requested GP trainer CPD on 13 March 2024 (340) – earlier than the claimant had requested hers. She did not receive a response to that request until 9 April 2024. I note this because the claimant says that the respondents deliberately delayed responding to her emails and this was an act of victimisation.[59]Dr Walling’s witness statement sets out that he and Ms Guilfoyle agreed that they should let both the claimant and Dr Twine know about the situation when they discussed the lack of rooms. However, Dr Twine was not contacted at the same time as the claimant. She was contacted on 9 April, two hours after the claimant sent the email above (339). In cross-examination, Ms Guilfoyle could not say why she did not contact Dr Twine at the same time. She speculated that she might have had other tasks to do, or been interrupted.[60]The response sent to Dr Twine on 9 April 2024 from Ms Guilfoyle is at 339. She apologises for the delay in responding. She agrees to accommodate Dr Twine’s CPD request. Dr Twine had asked to do her CPD on Tuesday mornings, and then to have Thursday mornings off. I accept Ms Guilfoyle’s oral evidence that Tuesday was a nonworking day for Dr Twine. Thursday mornings were her CPD time. She was therefore proposing that she would do the CPD during her non-working day and then ‘recoup’ the CPD time by not coming in to work on Thursday morning. This was therefore straightforward for the practice to accommodate. It would not involve re-arranging any clinical sessions. It may in fact be a benefit to the practice, as she would potentially then work some Thursday mornings.[61]Ms Guilfoyle goes on to state in that email: ‘I do need to also mention that whilst we completely support being able to accommodate you in becoming a trainer, we may not be able to support you in being able to take additional trainees at the practice due to the constraints of rooms and managing our current trainees. We will keep reviewing this and it can be something we visit once you have completed your training.’[62]It was put to Ms Guilfoyle that she only replied to Dr Twine then because she and Dr Walling realised their mistake, in offering Dr Twine the opportunity at the claimant’s expense whilst she was on maternity leave. I return to this below in my conclusion.[63]On 15 April 2024 Ms Guilfoyle replied to the claimant’s email of 9 April 2024 (349). She says she is sorry that she feels that way, then states: ‘To be clear we are happy for your CPD to be used to complete the requirements to become a trainer and this is the same offer other GPs have received. However we do not have the capacity to take on new trainees and this is the same information we have provided to other GPs training for this. We have not prioritised anyone over others.’[64]She goes on to set out the room capacity issue – that PCN clinical staffing has ‘risen massively… and this is already proving problematic.’ She also sets out that the nursing team has increased over the last two years as part of succession planning. She reiterates at the end that the practice supports the claimant becoming a trainer, but does not have currently the space to accommodate additional trainees. She notes the request to consider room scheduling and trainee sharing but does not consider they are workable solutions.[65]On 16 April 2024 the claimant emailed Ms Guilfoyle (358). She states that on call on Friday went better in terms of her arm. She had some questions from the on call session which she sets out. These relate in summary to ways of working, including for example questions about supervision of a physician’s associate, the appointments system, and queries about roles within the PCN, which were understandable as the claimant had been away from work for some time by then.[66]Also on 16 April 2024 Dr Twine emailed Dr Walling about GP training. She specifically queries, ‘If there are no rooms then is it worth me putting in the time and effort to be a trainer at the moment?’ (354).[67]Dr Walling replies to Dr Twine on the same day (353). He sets out responses to her questions. In particular regarding the trainee / room issue he states he can understand her disappointment. He goes on to state ‘We had previously thought we had capacity but recently did a full room review in order to see how we can house more of the PCN staff we are obliged to. We actually discovered we have very limited rooms across the week at all and with the health trainers are nearly at full usage all week... We are exploring options to see if we can free capacity by working in new ways … but we are not in a position to guarantee anything at this point. If we can sort this we would be keen to have further trainees / trainers but we don't want to make promises and have people disappointed later.’[68]On 19 April 2024 a meeting took place at 5.00pm between the claimant and Ms Guilfoyle. The claimant describes this meeting as a turning point, and the occasion when Ms Guilfoyle became more hostile towards her. There are two versions of the minutes and the respondent ultimately agreed to keep both on record. The minutes with the claimant’s comments appear from 422.[69]There is no evidence in the bundle or witness statement about any invitation to this meeting, or an agenda. The claimant describes feeling ambushed, and that this meeting was an escalation in formality – it was held in a different room with a large table, and with a minute taker present. I accept that evidence. The purpose and agenda for the meeting was not clearly set out, in contrast to the increased level of formality. This is in line with the findings of the grievance.[70]Present at the meeting were the claimant, Ms Guilfoyle and Adele Milnes (admin manager) taking minutes. Later in the grievance Ms Guilfoyle and Adele Milnes were asked about this meeting. Adele Milnes said that it ‘felt like a normal meeting’ (545). Ms Guilfoyle’s evidence was also that it was normal. This was not the claimant’s perception. I accept that she felt ambushed, stressed, and taken by surprise. This is borne out by the fact that the claimant sought support at the subsequent meeting. I accept that there was some abruptness or hostility from Ms Guilfoyle in that meeting.[71]The meeting was said to be ‘to see how you are doing and discuss it from a practice point of view and to see how we go from here’. The claimant was obviously unclear of the purpose because she asks straight away ‘to do with my arm?’ the response is ‘yes, we can touch on your emails regarding CPD and physician associate. We can talk about your arm first and then deal with other bits’. There are discussions about support for the claimant’s arm and adjustments. The claimant explains that she is still having some difficulty catching up with emails, and some ways of working to support this are discussed.[72]The claimant’s version of the minutes includes an exchange following from this comment about emails and the volume of digital work. It is not disputed that Ms Guilfoyle says, ‘everything we do is digital… don’t know how to keep you up to date with everything relevant that isn’t digital’. The claimant’s minutes record Ms Guilfoyle then stating, ‘we need a doctor who can do the job’. Dr Riat asks, ‘is this is a dismissal?’ and Ms Guilfoyle then states ‘no’. I accept that this exchange happened. I do not think that the claimant would fabricate it and she raised it within weeks of the meeting, once she had the respondent’s minutes. I accept that the claimant felt that her job was under threat at this point, although it was the claimant herself who explicitly raised the possibility of dismissal and Ms Guilfoyle was clear that this was not where they were.[73]The claimant’s evidence was that the meeting was about two hours, which Ms Guilfoyle accepted, although she said that included an informal chat afterwards. As well as the claimant’s arm and adjustments, the matters she raised in her email of 16 April 2024 about the on call session were discussed. It was agreed that the claimant was able to return to full time working and that the gaps which had been timetabled into her appointments schedule would now be removed. At the close of the meeting it was agreed that they would meet again in four weeks. The claimant expressed that she hoped to be back to normal by then.[74]The claimant’s position is that the respondents have deliberately doctored their version of the minutes. I do not accept this. Both Ms Guilfoyle and Dr Walling were clear in this when cross-examined. The respondents agreed to retain the claimant’s version of the minutes. It is common for parties to have different recollections of meetings and for minutes to differ to some extent. The respondents provided both versions to the grievance as well, which is consistent with them not deliberately doctoring minutes. There is a suggestion that the respondents have deliberately destroyed the handwritten notes taken in the meeting. I cannot see that this was put to Ms Guilfoyle either in crossexamination or examination in chief, and it is not dealt with in her witness statement. But I do not see why the respondent should have sent them to the claimant as they sent her the typed ones and retained her comments on them. Potentially they would be disclosable in these proceedings but there is nothing to suggest that they still exist or that if they did they would show anything that would advantage the claimant more than her own notes of the meeting.[75]On 26 April 2024, Dr Walling raised a ‘DATIX’ report following an incident when a patient was prescribed some antibiotics which were contra-indicated for their particular condition. The incident summary is at 394. The claimant says that this did not follow usual procedures, an unusually low threshold was applied, there was no follow up opportunity and this was done deliberately to criticise or intimidate her.[76]This was put to Dr Walling and I accept his evidence – this was standard incident / nearmiss reporting at the time, and that non-serious or near misses are also important learning opportunities. I have no difficulty accepting this is best practice. Dr Walling said he raised a ‘task’ to the claimant and another doctor setting out the action taken. The claimant did respond to him with a query which he wanted to check with other practitioners first of all. He accepts that he then forgot to get back to her after he had checked the point.[77]Around end of April Ms Guilfoyle supported the claimant with arranging some training around ‘PA support’ (392-396).[78]On 29 April 2024 the claimant emailed Ms Guilfoyle requesting permission to attend GP trainer training on 14 August 2024 (437). This was not responded to until 12 June 2024 and I return to this below.[79]The respondent’s version of the minutes of the meeting of 19 April 2024 together with a covering summary letter were sent to the claimant on 10 May 2024 (397). The letter summarises the discussion. It sets out that the claimant would now return to working fully and the blocks in her diary would be removed. It concludes: ‘In line with our policies if in further reviews you are still unable to undertake full duties as expected of this role, then we will have to look at the options which can include dismissal.’ Again, this is consistent with the conversation in the meeting recorded in the claimant’s version of the minutes.[80]The claimant was concerned about this letter, the minutes being inaccurate and the way in which the meeting on 19 April 2024 had gone. She contacted the medical protection society for support on or around 21 May 2024 (Clare Devlin witness statement para 2.1).[81]On 8 June 2024 the claimant chased a response to her request to attend GP trainer training in August (436). On 12 June 2024 this request was refused (437). Ms Guilfoyle apologises for ‘missing’ the request. She states in the email that due to annual leave etc she couldn’t release the claimant for the full day. The claimant was scheduled to be on call for that day. She notes that the claimant is down for CPD that Friday instead and asks the claimant if she could get another date to her. In cross-examination it was put to her that this was unrealistic due to the timetabling of the GP trainer training. I accept Ms Guilfoyle’s answer that she was not aware of this.[82]Clare Devlin from MPS agreed to support the claimant at the next meeting on 14 June 2024. She contacted Ms Guilfoyle to request clarity about the purpose of the meeting and Ms Guilfoyle sent her the policy (a different version from what the claimant had – the longer version) and an agenda on the morning of the meeting (447-450). It is not disputed that the claimant was in clinic at the time and did not have the opportunity to discuss these with Dr Devlin before the meeting. The agenda is not in the bundle.[83]The minutes of the meeting on 14 June 2024 are at 454 and are not disputed. It is accepted by everyone there that it was an awkward meeting and that there was tension. It is also accepted by everyone, including Ms Guilfoyle that she talked over the claimant at times. The claimant goes further and says that Ms Guilfoyle was hostile towards her. I return to this in my conclusions below. Ms Guilfoyle repeatedly suggests that they stick to the narrow agenda and asks to speak with the claimant separately another time. The claimant says this made her feel very uncomfortable. At end of the meeting it was noted that the claimant was off on annual leave for two weeks.[84]The conclusion of the meeting was set out in an email letter on 18 June 2024. It records that the claimant’s return to full duties had gone fine, and would continue. Ms Guilfoyle would arrange some Microsoft Teams training on her return to work (this had been discussed in the meeting). The letter concludes ‘This concludes your return to work process.’ (453)[85]The claimant was then on annual leave.[86]I have no evidence as to what happened between 18 June and 26 June, but 10.00am on 26 June (a Wednesday), while on annual leave, the claimant sent what is in quite clear terms a resignation email (461). The claimant has distanced herself from this but she clearly states she can no longer work ‘here’ and seeks pay in lieu of notice.[87]Ms Guilfoyle replied at 16.31 the same day, saying she is sorry to hear this. She states that the claimant is required to work three months’ notice. She states the only issue raised was about sick leave and she felt that this that had been resolved. She states that would prefer to discuss it and resolve matters, but if not they are willing to waive the claimant’s notice period. She asks the claimant to confirm within 24 hours i.e. by 5.00pm on 27 June (461). It is said that this was undue pressure but in the circumstances of arranging appointments for patients the following week I can understand the urgency.[88]On 27 June 2024 at 3.17pm, whilst still on annual leave and in North Yorkshire in area of poor signal (this was the claimant’s evidence which I accept) the claimant replied and stated she will need more time to consider. She affirms that absence of a reply is not consent / agreement / acceptance (461).[89]On 28 June 2024 (Friday) at 09.07 Ms Guilfoyle replies. She extended the time for confirmation to 12pm on Monday 1 June 2024, but had to give a time limit because of rotas. She stated if the claimant doesn’t reply she will assume that she will be working (460).[90]On 28 June 2024 (the same day) at 19.26 the claimant responded. She reiterated that no response is not consent or agreement. She says it is inappropriate to stipulate a 24 hour response time. She confirms that she is still an employee and will be undertaking her normal sessions (460).[91]At much the same time – 19.25 on 28 June 2024 – the claimant emailed Dr Walling and Dr Nathan (477). The subject line is ‘ongoing grievance issues’. The email sets out the claimant’s issues with Ms Guilfoyle including workplace bullying and incorrect, misleading and untimely provision of information. She requests a face to face meeting.[92]On 1 July 2024 Dr Walling responded at 10.17 to acknowledge the email. He states it will be dealt with as a grievance and invites the claimant to a meeting on Friday 5 July, with a union official if she chooses (477). It was suggested that this should have been dealt with informally but I accept Dr Walling’s evidence – I don’t see how this could have been dealt with any other way given the way the email was framed and its contents.[93]On 2 July 2024 the claimant requested a copy of the grievance procedure at 10.42am. it was sent at 12.36pm. At 17.35 the claimant emailed to say it hadn’t been followed at stage one because ‘I contacted you and Sarah 28/6’ and the rest was noted. (475-477). Having heard evidence from both parties I accept that Dr Walling took this to mean that the claimant was alleging that he had delayed in dealing with the response but that in fact the claimant was saying that she had not complied, because she sent the email to Dr Walling and Dr Nathan not to the practice manager.[94]On 3 July 2024 the claimant was due to return to work from annual leave. She did not attend that day or indeed again at all before her dismissal on 2 December 2024.[95]At 04.08am she emailed Dr Walling and Ms Guilfoyle stating she will be ‘on sick leave because of workplace stress’. Her best estimate was that she would be off until the next week (463). She also left Dr Walling a voicemail message (475).[96]At 09.56 Dr Walling acknowledged her email and stated, ‘can I just check you will still be attending the grievance meeting on Friday so we can try to deal with this.’ (475). He also asked her to include Ms Guilfoyle and Ms Milnes into communications about workplace absences so they could adjust rotas.[97]At 10.27 he emailed again to say he could hold the meeting on Friday over teams if the claimant would prefer (474).[98]The next day (4 July 2024) the claimant replied to Dr Walling (473-4). She stated it was unreasonable to expect her to keep checking her emails while on sick leave. She asked for the meeting on 5 July 2025 to be ‘delayed’ and stated, ‘I will be in touch once I am in the right headspace in order for us to arrange a new date’. She also queried whether it was appropriate to require her to keep communicating with Ms Guilfoyle given she had raised a grievance about her.[99]On 5 July 2024 Dr Walling emailed the claimant. He stated that he was happy for her to contact Adele Milnes during her sick leave instead of Ms Guilfoyle. He states he appreciates that she won’t pick up work emails while on sick leave. He states that she complained that the respondents didn’t organise the grievance in a timely manner. I accept that this relates to his misunderstanding from the earlier email that the claimant was raising a timing issue, when in fact she was not. He then states that ‘As your sick leave is related to workplace stress it is beneficial for you that we can resolve this for you as quickly as possible. We also need to provide cover for our patients and the right resource to support our colleagues to deliver the best service for those we support. Therefore I will reschedule the grievance for next week at 1pm on Friday 12 July.’ He also states ‘I also noticed that you emailed in stating you didn’t want to return to work here, effectively resigning. Pleas can you confirm if that is still the case or if you are wishing to ask us to rescind your resignation.’ (472-3).[100]On 9 July 2024 the claimant was provided with a fit note stating she was unfit to work due to workplace stress, and not fit to attend any meetings, until 2 August 2024 (262).[101]On 10 July 2024 the claimant replied to Dr Walling’s email. She confirmed that she was still employed and that emails with ‘demands’ clarifying her employment status ‘only add to my stress and anxiety’. She stated that she needed space from workplace bullying and harassment in order to recover. She refers to her sick note and states, ‘for the avoidance of doubt [this] includes grievance meetings’. She states she will be in touch when she is able and ready to progress with the grievance process and that she would be intermittently checking her work emails (472).[102]The following day, 11 July 2024, Dr Walling wrote to the claimant requesting permission to write to her GP and Occupational Health (571).[103]As noted on the list of issues, 23 July 2024 would be the last date prima facie in time.[104]The claimant responded on 24 July 2024 stating that she consented to an Occupational Health referral but not a letter to her GP. She queried why Dr Walling wanted to write to her GP a week into her sick leave, stating it was unusual and wasn’t done at all during her previous sick leave (471).[105]Between 30 July 2024 to 1 Aug 2024 there was an exchange of emails between the claimant and Adele Milnes about her current situation, around the expiry of her fit note. On 1 August 2024 the claimant provided a further fit note for four weeks (to 28 August), in same terms including regarding meetings. In a covering email the claimant stated there were some improvements (481-484).[106]On 6 August 2024 Dr Walling emailed Ms Guilfoyle directing her to make an Occupational Health referral. The covering email sets out that this is specifically with a focus on dealing with the claimant’s ability to attend meetings. Ms Guilfoyle sent the referral the same day (485-7). I accept Dr Walling’s oral evidence that the timing of this was because of annual leave. I also accept that he didn’t respond to the claimant’s query about why he wanted to write to her GP as well because she had asked him to keep contact to a minimum, and because he was happy that it could be dealt with by the Occupational Health report. He had wanted to write to her GP because he felt (as a GP) that the comment that the claimant was unable to attend meetings was unusual, but in any event this was not needed to be pursued because of the Occupational Health referral.[107]On 8 August 2024 the claimant submitted a grievance against Dr Walling, plus further grievances regarding Ms Guilfoyle (488). The complaints reflect a lot of the issues in this case – Ms Guilfoyle’s comments and approach taken in meetings and communication more generally, and the DATIX reporting on 26 April 2024. She explicitly raises maternity discrimination and the GP training. The claimant asks for a face to face grievance meeting, and requests an independent or external party to conduct the process. Within the same email the claimant also makes a DSAR for ‘all data the practice holds about me’ (492).[108]On 16 August 2024 the claimant was assessed by an Occupational Health practitioner. The report dated 18 August 2024 is at 493-4. The conclusion of the report is: ‘On assessment there was no evidence of any significant mental ill health. It appears that Dr Riat’s symptoms were stress related and have been helped by the time she has taken and measures she has implemented to improve them. There is a risk that the symptoms will recur if she is exposed to similar stresses. However, I agree that resolving the workplace issues is the best way forward. In my opinion, she is fit to attend meetings, albeit pending agreement on how any meetings will be conducted. If concerns persist, we would be happy to review her.’[109]The claimant’s evidence (as per her witness statement) is that she was provided with 48 hours to review the report, and query it before it was released to the business. She states she was not provided with an option to refuse to consent to it being disclosed. She says (and I agree) that this is in line with the guidance at 486 which provides two options – same time release or ‘prior sight of the report before it is released to the business (The employee will have 2 days to review the report and query any factual inaccuracies)’. The claimant’s oral evidence was clear, she reviewed the report, noted some minor changes which she now cannot recall but were only around dates or similar, and then clicked ‘OK’. She states she had no option to refuse to consent to its release.[110]The respondent did not receive anything from Occupational Health apparently until 17 September 2024 when Ms Guilfoyle received the email at 502. This email seems to me to be ambiguous. It states that the referral ‘has been released but the patient refused the medical report’. There is a link to ‘the referral’. Ms Guilfoyle doesn’t state this in her witness statement but in oral evidence she said she clicked this link and was not able to view the report. I accept that Ms Guilfoyle is being honest about that.[111]I accept that the respondents were not able to access the Occupational Health report. I also accept that the claimant did not deliberately refuse consent for it to be sent. I don’t know what happened in the system between the claimant, the Occupational Health provider and the respondents, and I don’t need to unravel it beyond those findings.[112]On 21 August 2024 Ms Guilfoyle emailed the claimant with the information from the DSAR request. She states that the claimant has live access to the respondent’s Teams channels, so she could see all information there. The claimant’s HR file was attached. She also enclosed copies of emails which mention the claimant specifically. (507).[113]Also On 21 August 2024 the claimant was invited to a grievance meeting with Stephanie Sheppard on 6 September 2024 (495-6). Dr Walling’s evidence which I accept was that he did not know that the Occupational Health report assessment had been done by then. He did not know whether or not there was anything to chase. He proceeded on the basis that although the claimant was signed off sick, she had asked for a meeting and therefore she was by implication now fit to attend meetings. He remained of the view that resolving the grievance would be beneficial for the claimant and likely to facilitate her return to work.[114]Stephanie Sheppard is business and development manager for cross gates PCN. In oral evidence she told me that there are 19 PCNs within Leeds and every GP surgery is part of one. At the relevant time Cross Gates PCN consisted of four GP practices. Two have now merged (one of which is R1). At the time Dr Walling was senior partner of one of those four. Ms Sheppard sees Dr Walling at board meetings every other month and some other workshops around that. She works across the various sites. She is based at the PCN office which is separate. She has no direct working relationship with Dr Walling. Since March 2024 she has been a director of Cross Gates Primary Care Limited. This is a limited company in which each of the (now) three practices, including R1, is an equal shareholder. It was set up to ‘host the employment and finances and sub-contract some of the contracts for the PCN’ but that didn’t come into effect until 1 October 2025.[115]Ms Sheppard has HR responsibility in her current role. Prior to that she worked at Marks and Spencer for 24 eyears,17 of which were as a manager, including 75% of her role dealing with people and HR including investigations and grievances. She is also the freedom to speak up guardian for the practices, which is an NHS whistleblowing role.[116]I record this evidence because it is part of the claimant’s case that Ms Sheppard was biased and did not conduct a fair grievance. I return to this in my conclusions.[117]Dr Walling and Ms Sheppard stated that the time between 8 August and 6 September 2024 spent identifying the appropriate person, and identifying a date which was workable.[118]On 27 and 28 August 2024 there were some emails between the claimant and Dr Walling about arrangements for the grievance meeting. The claimant requested a copy of the policy that was being followed. The policy was not provided but arrangements were made for the meeting (495-6).[119]On 6 September 2024 the claimant attended a grievance meeting with Ms Sheppard. The claimant provided an agenda for the meting setting out what she wanted to discuss and this was followed. The claimant was supported by Peter Jackson of the GMB in the meeting. The meeting was long – around 3 hours.[120]On 11 September 2024 the claimant emailed Dr Walling with a request for some specific documents which she felt were missing from the DSAR (506). Dr Walling responded with some further information on 20 September 2024 (505). On 25 September 2024 the claimant responded stating that the respondent had not taken the request seriously and that the DSAR response was dishonest. She specifically requests MS teams chats and set out some messages which were specifically missing (504). On 30 September 2024 Dr Waling responded. He attaches further disclosure and sets out some conversations he has had with the ICO about the limits of disclosure (504).[121]On 6 October 2024 the claimant requested further disclosure regarding MS Teams. Some final further teams chat disclosure is provided on 16 October 2024 (661).[122]There is reference in the details of claim to a brief meeting on 27 September 2024 when the claimant was told that the grievance was partially upheld and the report would be available by the end of the week (51) but this is not repeated anywhere in the evidence. Peter Jackson in his statement states that he was told by email on 25 September 2024 that a decision had been reached and that the claimant requested a copy of it on 30 September 2024 and 6 October 2024 and it was received on 9 October 2024.[123]The report is dated 9 October 2024 so I am satisfied that is the date that it was sent to the claimant. The report is at 518 to 547 and I have read it carefully. Ms Sheppard spoke to the claimant, Ms Guilfoyle, Dr Walling, Dr Twine, Adele Milne and Dr Nathan. She also looked at the documents listed at 520. She sets out carefully the contents of the evidence and her conclusions.[124]Her conclusions and recommendations are summarised in the covering letter at 515. She did not uphold: allegations of discrimination, particularly concerning maternity leave and deployment opportunities, allegations of unfounded threats of job dismissal, concerns about DATIX incident reporting being used to criticise clinical work, or allegations of bullying and harassment.[125]She did uphold concerns about transparent access to HR policies and misleading information regarding policies. She stated that: ‘the practise lacks up-to-date, comprehensive, and easily accessible HR policies, and the existing policies and procedures were not followed. This led to misleading information about policies, as references to sickness, return to work, and capability were made without adherence to any policy.’[126]Ms Sheppard made three recommendations: a full review of policies, with annual reviews thereafter; formal HR training on managing absence, ill health and performance including capability to the leadership team; and. ‘Finally, to rebuild working relationships and facilitate AR's return to work, a mediated conversation should take place with AW and MG separately, allowing AR to voice any ongoing concerns and enabling MG and AW to respond in a neutral environment.’[127]Ms Guilfoyle’s oral evidence was that these steps were not implemented until some considerable time after the claimant had left the employment of R1. The mediated conversations never took place. Ms Guilfoyle, Dr Walling and Dr Nathan all said they were waiting for the claimant to take the first step to request the meetings. However, I consider that further proactive steps by the respondents would have been reasonable.[128]On 11 October 2024 the claimant sought to appeal the grievance outcome (550- 552). She states there was no fair procedure, the investigation was flawed and imbalanced, she had been subject to a series of events amounting to sex discrimination, and there were concerns about Dr Walling’s behaviour which were not investigated.[129]The appeal was allocated to Dr Nathan to deal with. On 24 October 2024 she replied to the claimant (556). She apologised for the delay – she stated she was working through the process of when would be the best time to meet up. In oral evidence Dr Nathan stated the delay was because she was familiarising herself with the ACAS procedure, and intended to set a date after she returned from annual leave. On 29 October 2024 the claimant chased the grievance appeal, setting out concerns about the delay (554). On 4 November 2024 Dr Walling emailed Dr Nathan suggesting how to respond (554). Dr Walling and Dr Nathan are married and the claimant alleges this email was sent deliberately and unnecessarily. I accept Dr Walling and Dr Nathan’s evidence that Dr Nathan was on annual leave but Dr Walling was not that week and he emailed her to ensure it was responded to.[130]On 31 October 2024 Dr Nathan emailed the claimant with a meeting invitation for 7 November 2024 (558). On 4 November 2024 the claimant accepted the invitation via Microsoft Teams and asked for some points in clarification (557). I cannot see that this email was replied to.[131]In the course of this correspondence, on 16 October 2024 Ms Guilfoyle invited the claimant to a health review meeting on 21 October 2024, to ‘review your ongoing sickness absence. We would like then to discuss the next steps to supporting you to return to work’ (553). In oral evidence Ms Guilfoyle said this was sent because the grievance outcome had been received so she felt it was appropriate to move things forward.[132]On 20 October 2024 the claimant replied, stating she ‘politely declines’ the review meeting because the grievance process was ongoing due to the appeal (553).[133]On 23 October 2024 early conciliation started on the claimant’s first claim.[134]On 7 November 2024 a grievance appeal meeting was held. The claimant and Dr Nathan discussed the factors set out in the claimant’s appeal (559).[135]On 8 November 2024 Dr Nathan confirmed she would provide the outcome of the grievance appeal on 15 November 2024 (569).[136]The grievance appeal outcome was provided on 15 November 2024 (571). Dr Nathan sets out her consideration of the points raised and ultimately upholds Ms Sheppard’s decision and makes the same recommendations.[137]On 18 November 2024 the claimant was invited to a health review meeting on 21 November 2024 (579). At 8.19am on 20 November 2024 the claimant asks for ‘any health review to be held in abeyance on grounds that it would cause unnecessary stress.’ She states this is considering the recent outcome of the grievance process – and that she had been signed off sick (579). At 10.59am Ms Guilfoyle replies stating that she does understand but it is important to move things forwards. She confirms that the meeting will go ahead and that if the claimant are unable to attend, ‘we may need to make decisions without your input.’ She states that ‘due to the length of your sickness absence, one outcome form this meeting could be a termination of contract’ (578). There is no reference to what procedure or policy is being applied.[138]The claimant told me that she did not see this second email and she was devastated to later find out that meeting on 21 November had gone ahead and she had ‘failed to attend’.[139]On 22 November 2024 Ms Guilfoyle wrote to the claimant again, stating she had not attended on 21 November 2024 and that the meeting would be rescheduled for 27 November. The letter reiterates that due to the length of the claimant’s sickness absence, one outcome could be termination of contract (581). Again there is no reference to which policy or procedure is being applied.[140]The meeting happened on 27 November 2024. The claimant attended supported again by Mr Jackson from the GMB. Ms Guilfoyle was in attendance, and notetaker was present. The minutes are at 559. The meeting was short, a little over 10 minutes. I have read the minutes. It is apparent from the minutes, and consistent with Ms Guilfoyle and the claimant’s evidence, that this was the first time that the claimant realised the respondent had not received the August Occupational Health report. Not unreasonably, she thought the previous meetings had all gone ahead precisely because they had seen that report.[141]Everyone present seems to agree that it was a civil meeting. Mr Jackson’s evidence was that was because the understanding of all parties was that the outcomes would be: the claimant would provide the August Occupational Health report, a further referral would be made, and they would all work towards her returning to work at the end of her current fit note, which would be expiring on 17 December 2024.[142]That account is entirely consistent with the minutes, which record just that at 585. The claimant does state she does not know when she would be able to come back to work but that Occupational Health had a role to play. She is asked by Ms Guilfoyle if she would consent to a further Occupational Health referral and she confirms she will. Mr Jackson (who was there on the claimant’s behalf) clearly states ‘another referral to Occupational Health and that may be ready by the end of the sick note and will help discuss next steps.’[143]The claimant’s evidence is that she was feeling better by then. She had attended the meetings. The grievance process was complete. She was waiting for the respondent to implement the grievance outcome, make a further Occupational Health referral, and then she hoped to be back at work by the end of the fit note or shortly thereafter, allowing for time for the meetings and so on to be arranged over the Christmas period. She is clear that the planned return date, discussed in the meeting, was when her sick note expired on 17 December 2024.[144]Following the meeting, for an unexplained reason, Ms Guilfoyle then emailed the claimant and asked her to contact the Occupational Health provider to request that the report is released to the respondents (592). No explanation is given as to why Ms Guilfoyle changed her mind from the earlier agreement that the claimant would just email her the report.[145]I accept the claimant’s evidence that she then wrote an email to Occupational Health, albeit to an incorrect email address, on 28 November but that this never sent because she shut her laptop down too quickly. When she realised her error on 1 December 2024, this was resent.[146]On 2 December 2024, Ms Guilfoyle decided to dismiss the claimant. I accept Ms Guilfoyle and Dr Walling’s oral evidence that this was Ms Guilfoyle’s decision and she asked Dr Walling to approve it. He would have had to because the claimant was an employee of R1, not R2.[147]Dr Walling approved the decision on the basis of what Ms Guilfoyle told him the situation was, not on the basis of the minutes, which he did not read. She told him that there was no prospect of the claimant returning to work and that the Occupational Health report was still not provided. Understandably, on the basis of that information he approved the dismissal.[148]On 2 December 2024 Ms Guilfoyle wrote to the claimant on behalf of R1 dismissing her (591). The letter states that her employment with R1 is terminated ‘by reason of capability (ill health)’. The reasons given are as follows: ‘1. You have been absent from work continuously as a result of sickness since 3rd July 2. Unfortunately as requested we have still not received the August occupational health report and as such are unable to take their opinion into account. 3. During the meeting a future return to work was discussed but there no suggestion of when this would be all that this was likely in the foreseeable future. As a result having taken into account the above we do not feel there is a realistic alternative other than to terminate your employment with the Practice on the grounds of ill health.’[149]On 5 December the claimant appealed the decision (595). She asked for this to be done on the papers without a hearing. Dr Walling dealt with this on the documents and provided the outcome on 6 December 2024 (600). He upheld the decision.[150]On 24 December 2024 the claimant presented her first claim (discrimination / victimisation) and on 10 April 2024, following further early conciliation, she presented her unfair dismissal claim. Relevant law[151]A Tribunal judgment is not intended to be a detailed recitation of the law. The principles are well-established and reflected in the list of issues. I have considered the principles and authorities referred to by both parties in their helpful submissions. Time limits – Equality Act 2010[152]Section 123 Equality Act 2020 provides (so far as relevant): ‘(1) … proceedings ‘[in the Employment Tribunal] may not be brought after the end of— (a)the period of 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or (b)such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable. […]. (3)For the purposes of this section— (a)conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period; (b)failure to do something is to be treated as occurring when the person in question decided on it.’[153]There is a distinction between a continuing act and an act that has continuing consequences (which is not a continuing act) Barclays Bank plc v Kapur and ors 1991 ICR 208, HL. Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination[154]Section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 (so far as relevant) provides: ‘(1)This section has effect for the purposes of the application of Part 5 (work) to the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity. (2)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in or after the protected period in relation to a pregnancy of hers, A treats her unfavourably — (a)because of the pregnancy, or (b)because of illness suffered by her in that protected period as a result of the pregnancy. (3)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if A treats her unfavourably because she is on compulsory maternity leave or on equivalent compulsory maternity leave. (4)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if A treats her unfavourably because she is exercising or seeking to exercise, or has exercised or sought to exercise, the right to ordinary or additional maternity leave or a right to equivalent maternity leave. […] (6)The protected period, in relation to a woman's pregnancy, begins when the pregnancy begins, and ends— (a)if she has the right to ordinary and additional maternity leave, at the end of the additional maternity leave period or (if earlier) when she returns to work after the pregnancy; (aa)if she does not have that right, but has a right to equivalent maternity leave, at the end of that leave period, or (if earlier) when she returns to work after the pregnancy; (b)if she does not have a right as described in paragraph (a) or (aa), at the end of the period of 2 weeks beginning with the end of the pregnancy. […]’[155]There is no need to identify a comparator. The Tribunal must consider whether the claimant has been treated ‘unfavourably’ and whether it was ‘because of’ one of the prohibited reasons. Victimisation[156]Section 27 Equality Act 2010 (so far as relevant) provides: ‘(1)A person(a) (A) victimises another person(b) (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because— (a)B does a protected act, or (b)A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act. (2)Each of the following is a protected act— (a)bringing proceedings under this Act; (b)giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act; (c)doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act; (d)making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act.’[157]Whether a general complaint or allegation amounts to a protected act under section 27(2)(d) will depend on the facts of the case. See, for example Durrani v London Borough of Ealing (EAT 0454/12). The context may be relevant (see e.g. Fullah v Medical Research Council and anor (EAT 0586/12). Unfair dismissal[158]Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) provides that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer. Section 98 ERA 1996 (as far as relevant) provides: ‘(1)In determining for the purposes of this Part whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, it is for the employer to show— (a)the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal, and (b)that it is either a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held. (2)A reason falls within this subsection if it— (a)relates to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do, […] (3)In subsection (2)(a)— (a)“capability”, in relation to an employee, means his capability assessed by reference to skill, aptitude, health or any other physical or mental quality, and […[ (4) Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (1), the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer)— (a)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 (b)shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case. […]’[159]It is for the employer to show that he or she reasonably believed in the employee’s lack of capability. The belief does not have to be correct but must be based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable enquiry (Taylor v Alisdair Ltd [1978] ICR 445). An opinion on how soon an acceptable level of attendance will be resumed is often required but not in every case (International Sports Co Ltd v Thompson [1980] IRLR 340). A failure by an employer to follow its own procedures does not inevitably lead to a finding of unfair dismissal (Westminster City Council v Cabaj [1996] IRLR 399). Consideration should be given to any recent improvement in the employee's condition and/or attendance record (see e.g. Scott v Secretary of State for Scotland EAT 196/88 and Post Office v Stones EAT 390/80).[160]When considering the fairness of the dismissal, the Tribunal must not put itself in the position of the employer and substitute its own decision), but must consider whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer (Foley v Post Office; HSBC Bank plc (formerly Midland Bank plc) v Madden 2000 ICR 1283, CA.[161]I now turn to my conclusions. I have adopted the numbering in the Case Management Order dated 21 October 2025 at 89 onwards for ease of reference. 4. Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section 18) 4.1. Did the respondent treat the claimant unfavorably by removing her opportunity to practice as a GP trainer?[162]I have found that R1 did not make a contractual commitment to Dr Twine. I accept that the commitment made to her was in the same terms as that to the claimant. The practice were supportive of both the claimant and Dr Twine becoming GP trainers.[163]I have therefore asked myself, did Dr Twine’s appointment preclude the claimant from the opportunity to practise as a GP trainer thereby removing her opportunity? I find this is not the case.[164]I can understand why certain things raised the claimant’s suspicions or concerns – specifically the wording of the 5 April 2024 email, and the Microsoft Teams message, combined with the impression the claimant had from her conversation with Dr Twine.[165]However, the claimant, and this Tribunal, has been given a clear explanation for the position, at length and repeatedly.[166]If the first respondent had made a commitment to Dr Twine and it was that which precluded the claimant from practising as a GP trainer, they then really did then proceed to cut their nose off to spite their face by rowing back from their commitment to Dr Twine as well. On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that their later emails to Dr Twine, or the rationale about room availability, were a carefully crafted rationale after the event.[167]They in fact did not give Dr Twine a trainee.[168]I have considered whether I should infer anything form the alleged differences in treatment between the claimant and Dr Twine. There is a difference in tone in the email to Dr Twine from Dr Walling explaining the rationale – but that is from Dr Walling and the claimant’s comparative email is from Ms Guilfoyle. There is no requirement for a comparator but I am not satisfied that I should infer from this that there was unfavourable treatment of the claimant.[169]I have also considered whether I should infer anything from differences in support to complete training CPD. The claimant was supported to go to training on 24 April 2024. In terms of the swap of Tuesdays for Dr Twine vs the refusal of the date in August for the claimant - again, an explanation has been provided. They were not preventing her from doing the training, but there were administrative and reasonable reasons why it couldn’t be done on that date. This is not unfavourable treatment.[170]I accept that the respondents did delay the claimant’s opportunity to practice as a GP trainer – she could still qualify / do the training but there was no opportunity to put it into practice because of the lack of room availability.[171]This decision was taken in late March 2024 and only communicated to the claimant reactively in early April 2024 after she had raised a query on 26 March 2024.[172]The claimant was then prevented from practising as a GP trainer due to the lack of trainees (because of lack of clinical room space) for the remainder of her employment (although this was also prevented by her sick leave). That is factually, unfavourable treatment.[173]Having made that finding, I then turn to deal with the issue of time limits at this stage Time limits1.1 Given the date the claim form was presented and the dates of early conciliation, any complaint about something that happened before 23 July 2024 may not have been brought in time.1.2 Were the discrimination and victimisation complaints made within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010? The Tribunal will decide:1.2.1 Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the act to which the complaint relates?1.2.2 If not, was there conduct extending over a period?1.2.3 If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the end of that period?1.2.4 If not, were the claims made within a further period that the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable? The Tribunal will decide: 1.2.4.1 Why were the complaints not made to the Tribunal in time?[174]Reminding myself of Barclays Bank plc v Kapur and ors (ibid), the decision was taken March 2024 but because it was kept under review I am satisfied that it was a continuing act rather than a decision with continuing consequences.[175]This therefore continued until the claimant’s dismissal and the claim is presented in time.[176]Returning, then to the remaining substantive issues: 4.2 Did the unfavourable treatment take place in the protected period?[177]No it did not. The recruitment of Dr Twine was not unfavourable treatment. It was not because of her recruitment that the claimant was unable to practise. The unfavourable treatment took place in late March 2024 and thereafter one the decision not to recruit or allocate any additional trainees took place. This was not in the protected period. 4.3 If not, did it take place after the protected period?[178]Yes. The claimant had been pregnant and taken maternity leave. 4.4 Was the unfavourable treatment because of the pregnancy? OR 4.5 Was the unfavourable treatment because the claimant was exercising or seeking to exercise, or had exercised or sought to exercise, the right to ordinary or additional maternity leave?[179]I accept that the reason for the treatment was because of lack of space, as set out in my findings above. Therefore it was not because of either of the prohibited reasons.[180]There is no link between the decision and the claimant’s pregnancy or maternity leave. The link put forward by the claimant is that the respondents recruited Dr Twine whilst she was on maternity leave and then preferred her over the claimant. The claimant says that but for her being on maternity leave she would have been able to practise as a GP trainer.[181]I accept that the reason was the room availability. That explanation makes sense. It is consistent with the minutes of the PCN meeting. Dr Walling gave a clear explanation of the room utilisation. R1 had taken on lots of other clinicians. Ms Guilfoyle’s incorrect witness statement that the claimant made her request on 5 March 2024 is not helpful. However I do not infer from that that the real reason for the treatment was pregnancy or maternity leave.[182]This is simply not the case on my finding. The respondents would have really gone to great lengths by also stopping Dr Twine from practising as a GP trainer and I am simply not persuaded on the evidence that this is what they did. I found them to be credible witnesses and I do not consider that Dr Walling, Ms Guilfoyle and/or Dr Nathan would have gone that far.[183]Ther is also no clear rationale put forward by the claimant as to why they would deliberately disadvantage her because of pregnancy or maternity leave. They paid her maternity pay when they did not have to. Why would they also prevent or delay Dr Twine having trainees just to cover it up? It doesn’t make sense[184]The claim of maternity discrimination is not well-founded and is dismissed. 5. Victimisation (Equality Act 2010 section 27) 5.1 Did the claimant do a protected act as follows: 5.1.1 In an email of 9 April 2024 to Ms Guilfoyle, the claimant referred to her disappointment at having the opportunity to be a GP trainer removed in contrast to another doctor “and whilst I was on maternity leave”. She then sought an explanation for her treatment.[185]The email appears at 350 and I have read it very carefully. The respondents dispute that this amounts to a protected act. Although not explicitly specified, it must be either 27(2)(c) – doing something connected with the act, or 27(2)(d) – making an allegation, whether or not express, that the employer has contravened the Act.[186]I remind myself of the authorities, in particular that context is important[187]I am satisfied that it would have been apparent to Ms Guilfoyle on reading that email that the claimant was raising an allegation that she had been disadvantaged by the recruitment of Dr Twine during her maternity leave – effectively giving her opportunity to somebody else whilst she was on maternity leave - and that if that were in fact the case, that may well be a breach of the Equality Act. The fact that Ms Guilfoyle responded to Dr Twine within two hours suggests to me that she clearly realised that this was a significant issue which needed to be dealt with swiftly i.e. that it was a significant allegation.[188]I am satisfied that it was a protected act. 5.2 Did the respondents do the following things: 5.2.1 Conduct a campaign to silence and discredit the claimant i) Respondent 2 would roll her eyes, sigh or ignore the Claimant in the reception area of the Practice or during review meetings when the Claimant attempted to raise concerns or make requests. Respondent 1 would go out of his way to avoid the Claimant wherever possible;[189]I break this down as follows:[190]R2 would roll her eyes, sigh or ignore the claimant in the reception area: There is limited evidence about this. It is set out in the claimant’s witness statement, but in very general terms. The claimant makes the same allegation in her grievance, but none of the other witnesses corroborate it. On the balance of probabilities I am not satisfied R2 did this. 191. or during review meetings when C attempted to raise concerns or make requests. I accept that in the 19 April and 14 June 2024 meetings there was non-verbal communication which was reasonably perceived as hostile towards the claimant. On 19 April I accept that the claimant was shaken up. This is borne out in the request for Dr Devlin to accompany her at the next meeting. I note that Adele Milne’s perception was that it was a nice, normal, meeting but I accept that Ms Guilfoyle was hostile – otherwise the claimant would not have felt that she was under threat of dismissal.[192]On 14 June 2024 I am satisfied Ms Guilfoyle presented in the same manner. Dr Devlin’s evidence on this was not challenged. Ms Milnes also stated in the grievance investigation that Ms Guilfoyle talked over the claimant, which is not disputed.[193]The 27 November 2024 meeting was pleasant and not hostile, as set out in my findings above.[194]R1 (Dr Walling) would go out of his way to avoid the claimant wherever possible: I do not accept that Dr Waling went out of his way to avoid the claimant. The claimant does not present any evidence of anything specific – no examples of him seeing her and walking away or anything similar. The claimant was absent on sick leave for the majority of the time after her return from maternity leave. Dr Walling worked predominantly at a different site. I am satisfied that he was not trying to avoid her. ii) The Respondents delayed replying to the Claimant’s emails and requests. These requests were for items such as review meeting minutes, a copy of the HR policy being followed, meeting agendas and a response to her grievance appeal. Some requests were completely ignored. Respondent 2 took over six weeks to respond to the Claimant’s request to attend GP trainer training. At other times the Respondents would bombard the Claimant with communication when she was off on annual leave or on sick leave;[195]I do not accept the respondents delayed responding to the claimant’s requests. The timings regarding training requests are consistent with the responses to Dr Twine. In fact there was longer between Dr Twine’s request on 13 March 2024 and the response on 9 April 2024 than between the claimant’s request on 26 March 2024 and response on 5 April 2024, when the training on 24 April was actually approved. It was the August request that took some time to respond to and was refused – but I am satisfied that this was not deliberate or unreasonable.[196]In terms of the other delays – looking at the correspondence overall, I can see that Ms Guilfoyle, Dr Walling, Dr Nathan, and Dr Twine and the claimant they all take some time to reply to emails to each other. This is not surprising giving they were operating a busy GP practice.[197]I do not accept the respondents bombarded her with communications when she was off on annual leave or sick leave – the communications were reasonable and in response to the claimant contacting them. The points raised were urgent matters that needed to be dealt with such as whether the claimant would be returning to work or not, and the progression of her grievance. iii) The minutes of review meetings were said to have disappeared or were tactfully edited to remove the context of the conversation or any questionable remarks by Respondent 2 with a refusal to work towards an agreed set;[198]There were two sets of minutes of the 19 April 2024. They are not drastically different. The comment about ‘is this a dismissal?’ is the only key comment missing. That a question raised by the claimant. The respondent has not deliberately omitted a comment made by Ms Guilfoyle. In the Tribunal we read a lot of minutes of meetings. They are never 100% accurate and people invariably have different recollections of exactly what was said. In this case the respondents retained both copies. I do not accept they were ‘tactfully edited’ – otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed to keep the claimant’s version.[199]In terms of whether the minutes ‘disappeared’ – as set out above I do not consider that the handwritten notes of 19 April 2024 have been deliberately destroyed or that the respondents are pretending that they disappeared. I cannot identify a motive for doing this given that they have retained the claimant’s own notes. iv) Responses to the Claimant’s subject access request were drip fed across to the Claimant over a dozen emails with some data being doctored;[200]The correspondence about the DSAR is reasonable. The claimant responded with further requests and they were dealt with. I do not accept that data was doctored. v) The Respondents undermined internal HR processes. The Respondents were unable to state or produce which HR policy they were following in regards to review meetings so that the meetings’ purpose and potential outcome was always unclear.[201]I do not accept the respondent’s ‘undermined’ internal HR processes. But I do accept and find that they were unable to state or produce the policy. As found by Ms Sheppard in the grievance, there was a real lack of clarity about what policy was being adopted in the meetings between the claimant and Ms Guilfoyle. Combined with the verbal and written comments about potentially moving into a dismissal situation, that created a significant lack of clarity. vi) A review meeting was documented to have taken place on 15 March 2024 but this never happened;[202]I am unclear why this would amount to a detriment anyway. It is not said to have been a review meeting, it was said to be an informal meeting. If making notes of it was said to be unfavourable treatment I am not sure why. I do not find that a review meeting was documented to have taken place which did not happen. vii) False allegations were made about the Claimant’s professional work with no follow through;[203]This refers to the DATIX report. I accept Dr Walling’s evidence about this, as set out above. There is nothing else within the documents or oral evidence which leads me to consider that this was a false allegation with no follow through. viii) Recommendations from Occupational Health’s report dated 28 January 2024 related to the Claimant’s tennis elbow issue were ignored by the Respondents. The Claimant had to ask repeatedly for a right sided room, dictation software and a mouse but Dr Twine was given a standing desk in a set room to suit her needs. There was no phased return nor employer rereferral of the Claimant for another occupational health review;[204]Looking at the return to work meetings and the provision in place, I find that the recommendations were mostly followed. They were not ignored. The recommendations which weren’t adopted, or were adopted in a different manner, were explained. The respondent is not obliged to follow every single recommendation. They were not ignored.[205]A right-sided room was provided, although the claimant had to repeatedly ask for this.[206]Dictation software was provided, just not the brand requested. The claimant provided her own mouse that she had been using at home. The respondents provided a mouse and were prepared to purchase an alternative one if recommended, but did not need to in the event because the claimant provided one.[207]In terms of the reference to Dr Twine, again there is no need for a comparator but I accept Dr Twine and Ms Guilfoyle’s evidence that the standing desk was there to be used and was not provided specifically for Dr Twine.[208]There was a phased return to work. This was not accommodated strictly as recommended, but by the claimant initially working from home for two hours at a time, and then from having ‘blocks’ in her schedule between patients.[209]In conclusion, the Occupational Health recommendations from the January report were adopted as far as reasonable. This is borne out by the letter of 18 June 2024, which confirmed that the return to work process was complete and the claimant was physically able to do her job. ix) Stephanie Sheppard was relied upon as an independent grievance investigator when she is fact has a vested interest in her professional relationship with Respondent 1.[210]This allegation is not made out. Ms Sheppard was not employed by the practice and was at least one step removed. A grievance can be conducted quite properly by an employee, so there is nothing inherently ‘vested’ as a result of the fact that she is part of the associated company.[211]I am satisfied having heard Ms Sheppard’s evidence that she approached the grievance independently and took that responsibility very seriously.[212]The report is thorough. She looked at lot of sources. In cross-examination she was criticised on the basis that the report lacked analysis effectively. It is not a legal judgment and Ms Sheppard does explain what her decision is based on. She took time over it – in fact she is simultaneously criticised for being too slow by the claimant and by Mr Jackson for being too fast.[213]Finally, Ms Sheppard did criticise the respondents in her report – she criticises their lack of policy. She also acknowledges that there is a problem because she recommends mediated conversations – if she was just sweeping things under the carpet and not properly considering the grievance, she could have omitted both of these findings and recommendations. x) The Claimant was discredited by the Respondents so other staff in the workplace treated the Claimant as a troublemaker. When the Claimant attended the Practice for a review meeting on 27 November 2024, the receptionist acted strangely with the Claimant. The receptionist was visibly red, shaking and insisted upon the Claimant signing in although nobody had signed in for months on the preceding line in the sign in book. Another doctor in the practice stopped all communication with the Claimant during the period of unfavourable treatment.[214]There is very limited evidence about the receptionist’s presentation on this date. The claimant describes her presentation in her witness statement, but there is no evidence to link this to the respondent having discredited the claimant. This allegation is not made out.[215]There is no evidence at all, including in the claimant’s witness statement, that another doctor in the practice stopped all communication with the claimant. This is also not made out. xi) Respondent 1 has refused to provide a reference for the Claimant to date.[216]Dr Nathan was asked about this in cross-examination and I accept her evidence. An agency or potential employer contacted Dr Nathan for a reference. She directed them to Ms Guilfoyle in line with practice policy. The agency / employer did not take it any further. I am not satisfied that R1 has refused to provide a reference. 5.2.2. Cause the claimant to be absent from work due to sickness[217]It was said by the claimant that the respondent deliberately did not provide support, so that she would go off sick. This is not made out. The respondents did put in place support – she was in fact back at work on full duties by 14 June 2024 – so I do not accept this is the made out. 5.2.3. Taper the payments due to her during her period of sickness[218]This allegation was not put to any of the respondent’s witnesses or followed up in the claimant’s evidence. From what I can tell she was paid in line with her contractual sick pay. 5.2.4. Delay her grievance and its resolution[219]I accept that the delays in the grievance were reasonable, and occurred for the reasons given as set out above. The claimant both criticises Ms Sheppard for not spending enough time on her grievance and also for delaying it.[220]There was a delay in Dr Nathan dealing with the grievance appeal. I accept that these were due to annual leave and Dr Nathan wanting to be thorough. I do not consider that the respondents deliberately delayed either the grievance or the grievance appeal. Time Limits - victimisation[221]To recap, the allegations which I have found are: Ms Guilfoyle was hostile in meetings on 19 April 2024 and 14 June 2024; the respondents did not apply policies consistently throughout the claimant’s employment; and the claimant had to request a right sided room repeatedly, up until was 3 July 2024 when she re-commenced sickness absence.[222]The allegations of Ms Guilfoyle’s conduct in meetings on 19 April and 14 June 2024 are out of time. They are not part of a continuing act – they are different acts from the other allegations found proven. I do not consider that it is just equitable to extend time because they are discrete acts which are out of time and there is no reason given for me to extend time.[223]The detriments of not applying a policy are in time. It also applies to the meeting of 27 November 2024 because the policies were still unclear at that stage. This is a continuing act because the earlier acts of failing to apply a clear policy at earlier meetings and throughout the claimant’s sickness absences are similar.[224]The failure to provide a right handed set up stopped on 3 July 2024. It cannot be said to be a continuing act. This claim is therefore not in time. Again, I do not consider that it is just and equitable to extend time because this is a discrete act and there is no reason given for me to extend time. 5.3. By doing so, did it subject the claimant to detriment?[225]The lack of a clear policy, which is the only act in time, is a detriment. It put the claimant in an unclear and uncertain position. 5.4 If so, was it because the claimant did a protected act?[226]The failure to apply a consistent policy was not because of the protected act. The respondent’s policies were nine years old, and I accept that they simply did not have a practice of reviewing and implementing clear policies. The policies had been outdated before the claimant even commenced employment with R1.[227]If I am wrong and the attitude of Ms Guilfoyle in meetings and/or the fact that the claimant had to keep asking for a right-sided room are in time, I do not consider that these are because of the protected act either.[228]There is no evidence to link Ms Guilfoyle’s change in attitude to the email other than one happened after the other. The claimant’s evidence in some respects was that issues with Ms Guilfoyle started earlier, with the informal meeting in March.[229]Similarly, there is no link between the request for a right-sided room and the protected act. In fact, the right-sided room issue pre-dated the protected act, as it started on the claimant’s return to work in March 2024.[230]The claim of victimisation is therefore dismissed. 2. Unfair dismissal 2.1 What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal? The respondent says the reason was capability (long term absence). The claimant says it was her bringing of grievances and challenging the removal of her opportunity to be a GP trainer.[231]I am satisfied that the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was capability (long term absence). By the time of her dismissal, her email of 5 April 2026 had occurred many months earlier. The grievances had been resolved, and appealed, and the appeal had been resolved. If the respondent wanted to get rid of the claimant for any of those reasons they could simply have held her to her resignation of 26 June 2024. They did not, they sought to resolve the issue then and readily accepted her retraction of the resignation. The dismissal letter says capability is the reason for dismissal and I accept that. 2.2 If the reason was capability, did the respondent act reasonably or unreasonably in all the circumstances, including the respondent’s size and administrative resources, in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant? The Tribunal’s determination whether the dismissal was fair or unfair must be in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case. The Tribunal will usually have to consider, in particular, whether:2.2.1 The respondent genuinely believed the claimant was no longer capable of performing their duties;2.2.2 The respondent adequately consulted the claimant;2.2.3 The respondent carried out a reasonable investigation, including finding out about the up-to-date medical position;2.2.4 The respondent adequately considered redeployment as an alternative to dismissal2.2.5 The respondent could reasonably be expected to wait longer before dismissing the claimant; and2.2.6 Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. 2.3 The claimant, in particular, maintains that there was no medical evidence supporting an inability to work beyond the short-term, that a reasonable employer would have obtained up-to-date medical evidence and that the respondent acted prematurely without reasonable grounds for dismissal having been told on 27 of November that the claimant was likely to be fit that at the expiry of her current fit note.[232]I accept the claimant’s case on this point.[233]The claimant and her union representative left the meeting on 27 November 2024 with the clear understanding that an updated Occupational Health report would be obtained, the grievance recommendations would be implemented, and she would be back at work on or soon after the expiry of her fit note on 17 December 2024. That is entirely reasonable, consistent with the documentation, supported by the minutes, and supported by the witness evidence of both the claimant and Mr Jackson.[234]Ms Guilfoyle became unreasonably frustrated about the lack of provision of the August Occupational Health report.[235]I am satisfied that any reasonable employer would have sought an updated Occupational Health report and implemented the recommendations of the grievance outcome, which had been upheld on appeal, rather than dismissing following that meeting. The claimant was clearly improving because she had been able to attend grievance meeting, grievance appeal meeting, and review meeting on 27 November 2024. She told Ms Guilfoyle as much on the 27 November 2024. She was looking to get back to work by end of the current fit note. It simply was not the case that as of 27 November 2024 there was no prospect of her coming back to work.[236]The respondent did not need the previous Occupational Health report before commissioning an up to date one. It was clear that there was some sort of administrative error which had meant that it wasn’t released to the respondents at the time. Ms Guilfoyle could have just let the claimant email it to her as was discussed in the meeting.[237]It was outside the range of reasonable responses to dismiss the claimant on 2 December 2024. The respondent also failed to apply a clear policy at the hearing on 27 November 2024, and this was unreasonable. However, the dismissal was not only procedurally unfair. It was substantively unfair in all the circumstances. Dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses. 3. Remedy for unfair dismissal 3.1.4 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? 3.1.5 If so, should the claimant’s compensation be reduced? By how much?[238]It was agreed that I would deal with this issue as part of the liability judgment.[239]As observed above, the dismissal was not only procedurally unfair, but I am satisfied that I ought to consider whether there was a chance the claimant would have been dismissed fairly at a later date. This is because no Occupational Health report was in fact commissioned therefore I should consider whether the claimant might in fact not have been fit to return to work within a further reasonable period, and then been fairly dismissed at a later date.[240]I am satisfied that no reduction in compensation is appropriate. The August Occupational Health report in fact says the claimant has no underlying mental health issues and she needs the grievance resolved. It had been. The claimant’s oral evidence was she was doing better. I accept that. It is consistent with the fact she had engaged with meetings. Her ‘Finding employment diary’ (633) shows she started looking for work on the week of 2 December 2024. There is no evidence that she was in fact medically unfit to work thereafter.[241]Therefore I am satisfied and find that the claimant would have been back by 6 January 2025 at the latest, allowing for time for the Occupational Health report to be commissioned and received, and for the mediated conversations to take place given the forthcoming Christmas period. Therefore remedy should be assessed on the basis that the claimant would have returned to work on 6 January 2025. Approved by: Employment Judge Armstrong 1 July 2026 Notes All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written full reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunaldecisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practicedirections/