| Display title | Dr A Malik v CAS (Cygnet) Behavioural Health Ltd [2021] UKET 2403141/2018 |
| Default sort key | Dr A Malik v CAS (Cygnet) Behavioural Health Ltd (2021) UKET 2403141/2018 |
| Page length (in bytes) | 2,311 |
| Page ID | 16030 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 00:21, 2 December 2024 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 12:26, 23 January 2025 |
| Total number of edits | 7 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | A consultant psychiatrist employed at Cygnet Fountains Hospital suffered whistle-blowing detriments because of public interest disclosures, and was dismissed unfairly and without notice in breach of her contract. (1) She had given evidence to a coroner about drugs being found in a patient's room after death (having been warned by the CEO not to "make your life complicated", and by the solicitor that it was "not relevant to the patient's death" and that she "must have mis-remembered the event") and other related public interest disclosures. Her suspension after those disclosures was a detriment, as was a later GMC referral about the covert medication of another patient (which had a "venomous and dishonest tone" involved "unpleasant and untrue" features). There had been other detriments, in relation to undermining her and making her life less tolerable on her return to work, but the complaints about those were out of time. (2) Her subsequent dismissal was not because of the disclosures (so it was not automatically unfair dismissal) or for gross misconduct (for which there was no evidence as she had followed company covert medication policy) but was unfair: the disclosures acted as a "backdrop" for senior managers disliking her and later seizing an opportunity to dismiss her; the tribunal could not find that Cygnet held a genuine belief in misconduct; their decision-making process was disreputable; the CEO's actions were "less than honest", and other senior staff had been dishonest and engaged in lying and back-covering; and there had been a "litany of bad faith". (3) As there had been no gross misconduct, she had been dismissed without notice in breach of contract. |