Tribunal dismisses unfair dismissal claim by former Jersey Hospital doctor

A former clinical lead at Jersey Hospital’s rheumatology department has lost his unfair dismissal claim after an employment tribunal ruled that his return to work would damage public confidence in the health service.

Dr Michael Richardson was suspended by Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) in January 2022 following concerns about patient safety. He was dismissed in June 2025 after an investigation by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) found serious failings within the department.

The RCP review, prompted by the deaths of 182 patients since 2019, described the service as significantly below acceptable standards. It also identified cases of patients being prescribed specialist medication incorrectly.

Richardson challenged his suspension and dismissal, claiming he had been unfairly targeted in what he described as a “witch hunt”. He also argued that the RCP report was fundamentally flawed.

The original concerns arose after a junior doctor raised questions about a ward round conducted with Richardson on 17 January 2022. The doctor reportedly identified inadequate reviews of patients, clinical records, blood results and medical scans before resigning three days later.

Richardson was suspended immediately, with HCJ citing serious allegations of inappropriate conduct and concerns about patient and staff safety.

In a dismissal letter dated 13 June 2025, medical director Simon West said Richardson’s return would seriously damage HCJ’s reputation and undermine public confidence in the organisation. He also said the working relationship had irretrievably broken down.

The tribunal agreed there was sufficient evidence to support the decision, despite acknowledging that the dismissal process had not been properly followed.

It concluded that the main reason for dismissal was the potential damage to public confidence, regardless of Richardson’s clinical competence.

His additional claims of age and disability discrimination were also rejected. The panel found he had not demonstrated that older employees were disadvantaged by lengthy suspensions or established that he had a qualifying disability.

The tribunal also rejected his claims that he had been made a scapegoat for wider failings in the department.

Although the panel described Richardson as a credible witness, it said his evidence required considerable caution, criticising his tendency to focus on his own position rather than the impact of the department’s failings on patients and families.

Richardson subsequently requested permission to appeal and asked for the tribunal’s findings to remain unpublished until the appeal concluded.

However, the tribunal ruled that its judgement could be published without prejudicing the appeal.