Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected by Employment Tribunal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Case No 2400374/2024

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant:

[redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Liverpool

On: 23 October 2025

Before:

Employment Judge Aspinall

Representation Claimant:

[redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

JUDGMENT having been given orally on 23 October 2025 and sent to the parties on 3 December 2025 and the successful respondent having requested written reasons for the liability judgment on 17 December 2025, the following reasons are provided:

REASONS

Background

1. The claimant was a nurse practitioner for the respondent from 26 May 2011 until her employment was terminated by the respondent. She was given notice of dismissal on 3 October 2023 which expired on 26 December 2023. The claimant had been absent from work in receipt of insurance benefits from 19 June 2017 until 31 March 2023. During that time her registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) lapsed and she applied on 4 January 2022, making declarations, for revalidation and readmission to the register.

2. The respondent, knowing the requirements for revalidation readmission, and knowing that the claimant had been out of practice, was concerned about the accuracy of declarations that the claimant must have made in that process to have achieved registration. It conducted an investigation, invited the claimant

Case No 2400374/2024

2

to an investigatory interview, referred the matter to the NMC and subsequently held an internal disciplinary hearing. The respondent’s Head of Clinical Customer [NAME_5], decided to dismiss. The claimant appealed against her dismissal and her appeal was heard on 2 November 2023 by [NAME_6]. [NAME_6] upheld the decision to dismiss.

3. The claimant went to ACAS on 2 January 2024 and achieved her certificate that same [NAME_7]. She commenced employment tribunal proceedings on 22 January 2024. She claimed unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and said that she did not receive pay slips and made a claim for outstanding holiday pay. The respondent defended the claim saying that it had some other substantial reason, and in the alternative that the reason for dismissal was misconduct.

4. On 4 September 2024 the NMC panel hearing exonerated the claimant from any dishonesty or intention to mislead. It found that entries had been made incorrectly but in view of her long nursing career it decided to take no action.

The proceedings

5. The Tribunal case was initially listed for a one [NAME_7] final hearing. The parties agreed that that time listing was inappropriate and it was relisted for a four [NAME_7] final hearing in November 2024. Shortly before that November hearing the claimant made an application for postponement on the grounds of her partner’s ill-health. Her partner, a solicitor though not employment lawyer, was assisting her in the litigation though not formally on the record. The postponement was granted.

6. The respondent sought its costs of postponement. A preliminary hearing for case management took place before Employment Judge Dunlop. Judge Dunlop relisted this final hearing, made case management orders for preparation for this hearing and directed that the costs issue be held over to this hearing. [NAME_4] did not need to cross-examine the claimant on the costs issue. Everyone agreed to proceed by submission only and to hear the costs application after judgment in the case. The costs application failed. A separate costs failed judgment was issued.

7. The respondent had made applications to have witnesses who lived in Scotland and no longer worked for the respondent give evidence remotely. Employment Judge Leach granted permission for [NAME_8] and [NAME_6] to give evidence remotely.

8. The respondent informed the Tribunal at the start of this final hearing that the dismissing officer, [NAME_5], for personal health reasons would prefer to give evidence remotely. The Tribunal referred to Presidential Guidance on hybrid hearings and requested medical information. In the event, [NAME_5] travelled to Liverpool and appeared in person.

Adjustments

9. The claimant has anxiety. She was given as much time as she needed to answer questions and she was given additional breaks when distressed.

Case No 2400374/2024

3

10. [NAME_5] did not need any adjustments. Timetable

11. A timetable was agreed. [NAME_3] overran so that it was adjusted. The respondent’s witnesses were questioned on the afternoons of [NAME_7] 1 and morning of [NAME_7] 2, running over into the afternoon of [NAME_7] 2. The claimant’s evidence began at 3.05pm on [NAME_7] 2 and continued until 11.45 on [NAME_7] 3.

12. Closing submissions were made between 2.15 and 3pm on [NAME_7] 3.

13. The Tribunal deliberated overnight and on the morning of [NAME_7] 4. Judgment was given orally at 12 noon on [NAME_7] 4. Submissions were heard in the costs application which failed. List of issues

14. There was no agreed list at the outset of the hearing. The Tribunal required the parties to agree a list because it was evident that the claimant’s position was that as the NMC had exonerated her, that showed that the respondent had been unfair to dismiss her. The Tribunal wanted the legal test for unfair dismissal setting out clearly so that the claimant could see that the NMC outcome was of little if any relevance to the Tribunal.

15. Guidance was given on relevant law in unfair dismissal, the focus on the reason for dismissal (the respondent said some other substantial reason and, in the alternative, conduct) and the factors operating on the mind of [NAME_5], whether the reason was sufficient to justify dismissal; whether there were reasonable grounds for [NAME_5] to have genuinely believed in the claimant’s misconduct having carried out a fair investigation, the reasonableness of the response and whether or not mitigation had been taken into account. The Tribunal prepared a draft List of Issues and asked the claimant to set out what it was that she said made the dismissal unfair. This work was done whilst the Tribunal was reading on [NAME_7] one so that before evidence began the following list was agreed:

List of Issues

1) Unfair dismissal

a) The claimant was dismissed on 3 October 2023 with notice so that her employment ended on 26 December 2023. [NAME_5] was the dismissing officer. b) What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal?

c) Was it as the respondent says a substantial reason capable of justifying dismissal. d) In the alternative the respondent says the reason was misconduct ? Was it misconduct ?

Case No 2400374/2024

4

e) Did the respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant? f) The claimant says the respondent did not act reasonably in the following ways:

i) it failed to interview [NAME_9] re being a confirmer to the claimant’s NMC application ii) it failed to properly interpret the NMC guidance to the claimant iii) it drew false conclusions from the dates on the submissions – it should have been obvious the dates were errors iv) it failed to identify errors around the identity of the correct confirmer v) it failed to attach adequate weight in mitigation to the claimant’s confusion around NMC process vi) it failed to consider an alternate outcome other than dismissal vii) it failed to properly interpret the guidance given to the claimant around hours viii)it failed to accept that only the NMC can determine the validity of the revalidation application ix) it acted with undue haste in July 2023 after asking for copies of documentary evidence of revalidation application, in moving to a decision to investigate within days and then to discipline x) it failed to consider the content of a text message to [NAME_9] (which admittedly C had forgotten about and did not bring to the attention of the disciplinary or appeal panel) which would have shown C’s genuine confusion at the time the application was made and not dishonesty xi) the process of investigation and discipline and appeal was a sham designed to remove C from employment; the respondent did not want her back:- it had offered her a chance to leave with notice pay before coming back, she declined, it moved rapidly and unreasonably to investigation, it was communicating with NMC and expecting suspension, it had an agenda to remove C.

2) Remedy for unfair dismissal

a) If there is a compensatory award, how much should it be? The Tribunal will decide: i) What financial losses has the dismissal caused the claimant? ii) Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace their lost earnings, for example by looking for another job? iii) If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be compensated? iv) 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) Holiday Pay (Working Time Regulations 1998)

i) What was the claimant’s leave year? ii) How much of the leave year had passed when the claimant’s employment ended? iii) How much leave had accrued for the year by that date?

Case No 2400374/2024

5

iv) How much paid leave had the claimant taken in the year? v) Were any days carried over from previous holiday years? If so, how many, from which year and on what authority is that carried over ? vi) How many days remain unpaid on termination of employment ? vii) What is the relevant daily rate of pay? viii)How much was paid as outstanding holiday pay on termination; the respondent says 101.42 hours being £ 2013.79 ix) The respondent seeks to off set that amount from any annual leave due x) how much, if any, is due to the claimant ?

4) Pay slips

a) Did the respondent fail to provide pay slips b) If so for what period ? c) If so, what remedy is due to the claimant ? Dismissal on withdrawal

16. Following discussion the claimant withdrew any claim for wrongful dismissal. She had received pay in lieu of notice. [NAME_3] confirmed that all of her arguments were set out in the list. Documents

17. There was a bundle of 522 pages on paper. [NAME_3] had only an electronic copy and his page numbers did not match the paper copies. Everyone worked together during the hearing to identify and refer to the right documents.

18. There were witness statements from the claimant.

19. There were witness statements for the respondent from [NAME_10], the claimant’s line manager, [NAME_8], who referred the matter to NMC, [NAME_5] dismissing officer, [NAME_12] appeal decision maker and [NAME_14] (though she was not called to give evidence so no weight was attached to her statement). Oral evidence

20. The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant. She was evasive; some questions had to be put to her as many as four times before she would answer. She attempted to deflect difficult questions by saying she had been confused and unwell. The claimant was inconsistent both within her own oral evidence and with her positions at investigatory interview, disciplinary hearing and appeal. The claimant would not readily accept that signing a declaration that you have had a conversation that you have not had is a false declaration. The semantics seemed to matter very much to her. Eventually,

Case No 2400374/2024

6

reluctantly, she accepted that the declaration she had made was false, though she qualified this by saying she had not been motivated to deceive. She appeared bolstered in this position by the finding of the NMC panel. At other times she was forceful and showed resilience and confidence in her answers.

21. The Tribunal heard evidence from [NAME_10]. She gave her evidence in a straightforward and helpful way.

22. [NAME_15] was a witness who took care to be accurate and detailed in her evidence. She demonstrated a good knowledge of the detail of the case and clear recollection of her own actions and reasons for them.

23. [NAME_5] was a credible and impressive witness. She did not overstate. She had a meticulous attention to detail and she took time to answer carefully from recollection. She had a good memory of the events and the steps she had taken personally to reach her decision. She had clearly not taken the decision to dismiss lightly. She took care to listen to the question and engage with the claimant’s case. She was clear as to exactly why, for her, the claimant’s declarations were sufficient to dismiss and amounted to misconduct and why, for her, the context the claimant offered was insufficient to mitigate against dismissal.

24. [NAME_16] gave her evidence helpfully and was clear as to why she had decided a sanction lesser than dismissal was not appropriate.

25. The Tribunal attached no weight to the statement of [NAME_17] as she did not appear. [NAME_17] had conducted the internal investigation into the claimant’s NMC application. The Tribunal saw notes of the investigatory interview she conducted and saw her investigation report recommending disciplinary action. The Facts

26. The claimant started working for the respondent on 26 May 2011. She was a nurse practitioner alternately described as a disability analyst or functional assessor, conducting patient assessments to determine eligibility to obtain disability benefits on behalf of DWP. She worked with vulnerable patients discussing personal and confidential content. She had to read complicated medical notes and reports and make assessments that would affect their access to benefits and public money. She wrote detailed reports making recommendations to DWP. She was required under the contract between the respondent and DWP to be registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). This required regular revalidation of her registration. Her line manager was [NAME_10].

27. In 2017 the claimant became unwell and began a period of long term sickness absence initially due to a kidney infection and subsequently for anxiety. She was absent from 19 June 2017 until 31 March 2023. The respondent had an insurance policy in place which meant that when her entitlement to sick pay expired and whilst she was unfit for work the policy paid a proportion of her

Case No 2400374/2024

7

salary. She was paid under the policy from February 2018.

28. Revalidation for NMC included declaring continuing professional development and a nurse’s own fitness to practice. The NMC requirements changed in 2016 to include a requirement to have had a Reflective Discussion, based on [NAME_18] exemplar documents that the claimant could choose for herself, set out in logs that the applicant would discuss with a registered member of NMC and for that person to confirm the discussion had taken place.

29. In 2018 whilst she was off sick, the claimant successfully revalidated her registration under the 2016 requirements. She had a Reflective Discussion based on logs she prepared with [NAME_9] and [NAME_5] agreed to act as her Confirmer.

30. By 30 September 2021, whilst she was off sick, the claimant was due to revalidate for NMC. She wrote to NMC, she said:

Dear NMC I wish to make an application for postponement of my revalidation till 2022 on the grounds of exceptional mitigating circumstances. For the past three years I’ve been on long-term sick leave with work….

31. The claimant provided detail of the circumstances. She went on

I am hopeful to return to work early next year and am hopeful of completing my revalidation requirement. I’m happy that while I am present on sick leave from my employer to undertake online courses. The issue I have is the practice hours and hope to do them when I go back to work. I look forward to hearing from you.

32. NMC replied on 18 October 2021 expressing concern at her difficult circumstances and to say that it could allow a maximum of eight weeks extension. It gave guidance that it could only grant further extensions in exceptional circumstances and usually as a health related reasonable adjustment . It cautioned that if an applicant declares an extension is required due to an ongoing health condition NMC may investigate the health condition. It signalled

any false declarations may put your registration at risk

33. The claimant wrote on 19 October 2021 saying that she would like to apply for an exceptional circumstances extension due to an ongoing health condition. It appeared in October 2021 that the claimant thought that she was too ill to undertake revalidation.

34. The NMC’s [NAME_19] replied on 21 October 2021 at 1844 with subject line “revalidation escalation”. The claimant was still within the eight week extension period. He sent the claimant a link to guidance on completing revalidation. He included in his email the following guidance;

Case No 2400374/2024

8

that in relation to CPD hours online webinars and sessions would count as participatory hours as long as the claimant was able to actively take part in the session through discussion and question and answer

35. The 21 October 2021 reply went on to say

if you are unable to revalidate, your registration will lapse and you’ll be able to apply for a revalidation readmission when you’re ready to return to practice. The requirements remain the same except you will also be able to provide 750 practice hours over the past five years…….. Our readmission process has been updated recently and as long as your referees complete their online references readmission application can be completed within 1 to 2 weeks.

36. NMC sent the claimant two links. One link was to a checklist of requirements for returning to the register, and the other to guidance on returning to practice.

37. The claimant responded to the 21 October 2021 email the same [NAME_7] saying the email is confusing I will have completed the 750 hours in the past five years is this enough ?

38. Despite having been told that eight weeks was the maximum extension that could be granted she was seeking a longer period of extension to the deadline for revalidation. Mr [NAME_19] responded on 25 October 2021 reiterating that NMC could not grant a longer extension and suggesting that the claimant let her registration lapse and then apply for readmission to the register once her health issues were addressed. He suggested that she may then readmit in relation to practice hours using a minimum of 750 hours of registered practice in the last five years. He said he hoped that that clarified the situation

39. The claimant replied on 28 October telling NMC that she had asked her employer to provide detail of her practice hours. She said that she wished to request a review or appeal of her request for the further extension of time on the grounds of her exceptional circumstances. The claimant was copying her correspondences to her partner who was a solicitor.

40. [NAME_20] of NMC wrote to the claimant on 29 October 2021 informing her that her registration had now lapsed. He told her to rejoin the NMC register please complete a revalidation readmission application via your NMC online portal. Our readmission process has been updated recently and as long as your referees complete their online references readmission application can be completed within one to 2 weeks.

41. He attached a hyperlink to the following address www.nmc.org.uk/registrationreturning to the register/checklist of requirements (LINK 1) and a hyperlink to a second address for information on and guidance as to how to revalidate www.nmc.org.uk/revalidation (LINK 2)

Case No 2400374/2024

9

42. On the point about a review or appeal of the refusal to grant a further extension of time Mr [NAME_20] referred her to the complaints department and provided a link address for complaints at nmc.uk.org. The claimant did not pursue the complaints point.

43. The claimant received the emails and followed the links. She read the guidance contained within those emails and the revalidation and reregistration links.

44. The claimant replied the same [NAME_7] on 29 October 2021 to Mr [NAME_20] you are sending me the same emails. My registration had not lapsed when I have sent previous emails. As stated on previous emails I want this escalating to a higher member of the team. I am not happy with the way this has been dealt with. It stated on previous email I can get a three month enquiry into my ill-health so why are you not doing this. I want this dealt with appropriately and not sent a standard email several times. This is not acceptable and I am dealing with a lot of stress . I do not need the NMC adding to this. I will be going further with this. I have never wanted to lapse my registration. I am extremely unhappy with this and feel this is discrimination despite being off ill and will go to the appropriate authority to get this dealt with. I wait an appropriate response.

45. On 3 November 2021 Senior [NAME_21] replied to the claimant on behalf of NMC.

As stated in the first response to your email if you declare that you require an extension due to an ongoing health condition we may investigate your health condition in accordance with our health and character guidance. Will hold your registration effective for up to 3 months from the date of your complete application we carry out this investigation. This three month investigation would only start after you submit your completed revalidation application. Revalidation is an important part of NMC registration which ensures nurses are fit to practice the maximum extension was granted to you until 27 October 2021. Therefore to get back on the register, when you’re ready, you will have the option of completing a readmission application where you can declare 750 practice hours over the past five years. Unfortunately, we don’t provide extensions for a period of one year.

46. He again directed her to the complaints link if she was still unhappy with the outcome. The claimant wrote

Dear Frank, can you confirm do I apply for revalidation and simply certified the 1600 hours or do I have to complete the revalidation participatory process as I did three years ago, reflections et cetera

47. On 30 November 2021 [NAME_21] wrote again confirming

I can confirm that as you are completing a readmission application within six months of when you’re revalidation was due you will also have to complete

Case No 2400374/2024

10

revalidation requirements. The application will therefore be for a revalidation readmission on your NMC online account please see paragraph 7 here www.nmc.org.uk/returning to the register/checklist of requirements

48. This was LINK 1 that had been sent to the claimant a month earlier on 29 October 2021 but this time it referred her specifically to provisions at paragraph 7. LINK 2 took the claimant to a page of guidance headed “what is revalidation”. It set out in bullet point format the requirements for revalidation. For the purposes of the Tribunal hearing the relevant components are labelled A – E.

you need to meet a range of revalidation requirements to show that you are keeping your skills and knowledge up to date and maintaining safe and effective practice 450 practice hours “practice hours” PART A 35 hours of CPD including 20 hours of participatory learning PART B five pieces of practice related feedback five written reflective accounts reflective discussion PART C health and character declaration PART D professional indemnity arrangement confirmation “references” PART E

49. There was further guidance on each of those categories available at drop down menus on the site. There was a section called “support” offering yet further guidance and sources of support in completing an application. There was a whole page of guidance about meeting the requirement for a reflective discussion. It said in relation to Part C

you must have had a reflective discussion with another NMC registrant covering your five written reflective accounts on your CPD and or practice related feedback and or an event or experience in your practice and how this relates to the Code. You must ensure that the NMC registrant with whom you had your reflective discussion signs the approved form recording their name, NMC pin, email, professional address and postcode as well as the date you had the discussion.

50. The guidance went on to say

you must use a reflective discussion form (and it provided a link to the template form) to record your reflective discussion. Although you are not required to submit this form to the NMC at any point you should keep it safe as part of your records.

51. The guidance explained

when you come to complete your revalidation application via NMC online will ask you to enter your reflective discussion partners NMC pin.

52. LINK 1 took the claimant to guidance on revalidation readmission (RR), which NMC had advised was the appropriate process for her, given that her registration had lapsed. Guidance at that link covered readmission

Case No 2400374/2024

11

requirements. It set out, for PART A, that in relation to practice hours she could rely on either

450 hours in the three years before you start your readmission application or 750 hours in the five years before you start your readmission application

53. For PART B it set out you must have gained 35 hours of learning in the three years before you apply for readmission. 20 of which had to be participatory.

54. In relation to health and character declarations, PART D, it said

in your application you will need to declare any health condition and or disability which may affect your ability to practice safely and effectively.

55. It included a link to guidance on health and character. The guidance included having a health condition and or disability doesn’t stop someone from being able to register with us-we just need to know whether their health condition and or disability allows them to practice safely and effectively with or without reasonable adjustments

56. The claimant had been specifically referred to paragraph 7 of that guidance. It said, amongst other requirements, you will need to declare 20 hours of your 35 hours of CPD are participatory declare you’ve obtained five pieces of practice related feedback declare you have five written reflective accounts confirm you’ve had a reflective discussion with an NMC registrant and provide their name and pin

57. That page itself contained the link. There was also guidance available on the NMC portal for those completing applications during Covid. That guidance was clear that the part B 35 hours of which 20 had to be participatory must have been obtained during the current three-year registration period. It was clear that participatory hours meant interaction with one or more other professionals. It gave examples of participative e-learning and was clear that it was up to the applicant to decide what activity was most useful as evidence of their own development. It gave guidance on part C the reflective discussion and confirmation but acknowledged that during Covid face to face discussion may not be possible and accepted that the reflective discussion may take place by telephone video chat or other technology. The guidance was clear that the applicant can send the confirmer copy of the revalidation portfolio prior to any conversation so that both parties to the reflective discussion could see what was being discussed. The guidance went on to say that the applicant must keep the evidence in a personal portfolio that could be added to throughout the three-year registration period. The Covid guidance did not refer to any place to a five year period. It was clear, the requirements for B, practice hours and C, continuing professional development, must each be evidenced over the preceding three year period.

Case No 2400374/2024

12

58. On 4 January 2022 the claimant, who had read the guidance at [NAME_39] carefully used the NMC online portal to complete the revalidation readmission application. She answered yes by ticking a box to each of the following declarations which the tribunal has numbered 1 – 4.

Declaration one: confirm that you have read and understood our returning to the register information. declaration two: I confirm that I have completed the continuing professional development requirements for readmission in line with the returning to the register information. declaration three: I declare that I have met the CPD requirements in line with the returning to the register information and will be able to provide evidence to support this if needed. declaration four: do you have a health condition and or disability that currently affects or could affect your ability to practice safely and effectively. The claimant answered no.

59. The online portal form at step 11 of 13 then summarised the declarations that had been made and asked the claimant to confirm that all of those declarations were correct. She confirmed that her declaration in relation to practice hours was true and accurate. This was Part A the 750 hours over 5 years.

60. She confirmed that her declaration in relation to continuing professional development was true and accurate. This was 35 hours of CPD with 20 being participatory over the previous 3 years, Part B and the Reflective Discussion and Confirmation Part C.

61. She confirmed that her declaration in relation to her health was true and accurate.

62. She ticked to confirm the following declaration

I understand that falsely representing myself as a nurse is a criminal offence and may result in prosecution. If any of the details provided in this application proved to be false then this may result in me being removed from the register or subject to a fitness to practice proceedings. I’m also aware that the information I supply will be checked by the NMC and failure to provide detailed information will result in my application being delayed or rejected. All of the information I have provided is true and accurate.

63. The claimant provided the name and registration PIN of [NAME_9] as the person with whom she had had a reflective discussion.

64. That same [NAME_7] the claimant emailed [NAME_9], the colleague who, in 2018 had conducted a reflective discussion with the claimant for the purposes of her 2018 revalidation application, to say happy New Year [NAME_5]. Sorry not been in touch been up wall. Hope you don’t mind but I have given your details to NMC as you signed my revalidation last time and because I have been off sick they will accept hours et cetera for past five years. Hope I done it right. I’m sure they will tell me if not…………

Case No 2400374/2024

13

65. The claimant remained off sick in receipt of policy benefits. After five years of paying salary the insurer decided that the claimant was no longer eligible for salary payments and notified the respondent that they would cease on 31 December 2022.

66. The respondent informed the claimant of the insurer’s decision and arrangements were made for sickness absence to end on 31 March 2023, for the claimant to then use accrued annual leave and to return to work on 15 May 2023. The claimant told the respondent that she had successfully revalidated her registration at NMC. The claimant returned to training and non patient facing work on a phased return.

67. The respondent discussed the claimant’s registration at the next [NAME_22] Board Meeting (ABM) following her return to work. There was concern as to how the claimant could be registered when she had been out of practice for over five years. [NAME_15], Head of Nursing Professional Standards was informed by the ABM that assurances would need to be sought from the claimant as to the validity of her registration.

68. [NAME_15] knew that there were separate component parts to NMC registration 69. A Continued Professional Development and practice hours. This meant the claimant had to evidence 750 hours of continuing medical education over 5 years B 35 hours of CPD, 20 of which should be [NAME_23] over the last three years, C a declaration and evidence of a reflective discussion with an NMC Registrant and detail of the registrant with whom the discussion was undertaken, D A health and character declaration and E References, the Reflective Discussion Confirmer.

70. A phased return to work was agreed with the claimant working three days per week undertaking training. The respondent also found that the claimant struggled with basic IT skills and it provided one to one support and training to bring her up to speed.

71. [NAME_15] sought advice from [NAME_24]. She explained the claimant had been off for five years. She explained the revalidation requirements including Part B, C and D. She said

I need to understand how she has revalidated if she didn’t meet those requirements and who her confirmer was…. I’m struggling to understand how the revalidation requirements could have been met. [NAME_24] replied and commented that it will depend how she has managed to revalidate and whether she has been dishonest.

72. [NAME_15] directed that the claimant be asked to provide the written evidence she had used to make her declarations with NMC. [NAME_26] wrote to the claimant on 19 July to say

hope the training is going well, when you have a moment could you please send me your revalidation documents sent to the NMC from 2022, and 20

Case No 2400374/2024

14

July there are some queries I need to answer to the professional standards team. Can you please send me your revalidation documents before close of play tomorrow, and 25 July by email.

The claimant did not respond. She had been doing training and had some annual leave. Ms [NAME_7] spoke to her about it on the morning of 25 July 2025. [NAME_15] emailed the claimant on 25 July 2023 saying

due to the length of your absence and the NMC stipulations around revalidation it’s important that we understand your practice hours (Part A) and CME completion (Part B) submissions required to revalidate successfully. If you could send those through to me as soon as possible for verification that would be really helpful, if you have time to send them today that would be great but if not by the end of the [NAME_7] tomorrow please.

73. The claimant replied

I refer to your comments made this morning regarding my revalidation. If any investigation is required please provide written notice of the same including any allegations so I can refer them to my union rep.

74. Ms [NAME_7] messaged the claimant on 25 July 2023 to say that if she provided the NMC information then an investigation may not be necessary. [NAME_15] updated [NAME_24] on 25 July 2023 that that the claimant had been asked for the paperwork and had not provided it. [NAME_15] proposed that if there was no response by close of business that [NAME_7] they start an investigation. There was no response. [NAME_17] was appointed on 26 July 2023 to conduct an investigation.

75. On 26 July 2023 a colleague at DWP asked the claimant to provide the evidence that was uploaded to NMC or sent to [NAME_27] so she could confirm criteria met. The respondent believed at this point that a colleague called [NAME_27] must have been the claimant’s confirmer.

76. The claimant replied to say they wanted a name for reference, that [NAME_27] had been her reference and she said

I was not aware I had to send anything to [NAME_27]. The NMC have not asked me to upload any evidence

77. The claimant then had some annual leave in early August 2023. On 14 August 2023 [NAME_17] wrote to invite the claimant to an investigation meeting. The letter set out the following allegation

to investigate your NMC revalidation following sickness absence to ensure that all elements required to revalidate have been met.

78. The letter set out that that there was to be a fact-finding meeting and that it did not form part of a formal disciplinary procedure. The respondent was happy for the claimant to bring her line manager to the meeting with her. The claimant attended the fact-finding meeting by teams on 17 August 2023. There was a notetaker present and the claimant’s line manager [NAME_10] No 2400374/2024

15

also attended. The claimant was asked what information she provided to the NMC and she said

I just ticked what they asked me to tick. They asked for a reference and my line manager’s name. I can’t really remember as I was off with a lot of stress and anxiety at the time. I’d have to check my emails.

79. The claimant was asked what she had used for part B. She said I used my CPD from the last time I revalidated. I got that impression from the NMC.

80. The claimant was asked did she realise that the 20 hours had to be participatory hours and she said no. She said

I’ve got all of the emails. I can send copies to you. As I say all I’ve done is act on guidance from NMC. I was very frustrated, sent several emails asking to be escalated.

81. The claimant was asked did she use the NMC website herself to look at what was needed and she replied

not that I can remember

82. The claimant was asked who was her confirmer, that is the person with whom she had the reflective discussion and she said I never had a discussion with anyone as I was off sick. Last time I had a discussion with [NAME_9]. I was asked for reference to return to register and that was [NAME_27], she was emailed.

83. The claimant was told normally you have to provide details of someone you’ve had a discussion with in the claimant replied

I presumed I didn’t need to do that as I was off sick

84. The claimant was told that she would have needed to provide the name and pin number for a registrant with whom she had had the reflective discussion in order to go back on the register and she said can’t remember that

85. [NAME_17] asked for copies of the emails so that the respondent could go through them to see what the claimant had been told . [NAME_17] asked whether or not the claimant had done any of the participatory hours within the three year period and the claimant said

no I presumed as I had them from last time that’s all they needed.

86. The claimant said that she was finding it stressful and [NAME_17] said she understood that but as an employer the respondent had to make sure the criteria for revalidation had been met. [NAME_17] asked if the claimant could scan and upload documents that she had revalidation that same [NAME_7]. The claimant said she’d already sent them to [NAME_29], a colleague at DWP.

Case No 2400374/2024

16

87. The claimant then sent five reflective accounts forms each dated 4 January 2022 containing content that related to incidents between 2018 and 2022. She also sent reflective accounts forms and record logs and other documents including feedback forms and templates on 17 August 2023 .

88. On 17 August 2023 after the investigatory interview [NAME_15] spoke with an NMC regulatory adviser and expressed concern that they may have a fraudulent NMC entry as it looks like the claimant did not meet the regulatory requirements to revalidate. She could not understand how the claimant, who had been out of practice for over five years, could have attained registration. She told NMC she was concerned about the application. NMC asked [NAME_15] to formally refer this matter to them for investigation which she did on 22 August 2023.

89. [NAME_15] had formed the view on 17 August 2023 that this matter needed to proceed to a disciplinary hearing.

90. Notes of the 17 August 2023 investigation fact-finding meeting were sent to the claimant . She did not sign to agree them. She said she wished to make amendments but no amendments were sent . The respondent put the claimant on duties that did not involve her meeting customers.

91. [NAME_17] provided a written report of her investigation. She attached the notes of the investigatory interview to the report. She found that the claimant did not have enough participatory continuing professional development (Part B) in the three years prior to 4 January 2022 to allow revalidation. She also found that the claimant gave [NAME_27]’s name to the NMC to be a referee for re-entry to the register. The report recorded the claimant having said that she had not gone to the NMC website during revalidation. The report cited mitigating factors including the claimant’s absence. The report recommended formal action.

92. The claimant was invited to a disciplinary meeting with [NAME_5]. The invitation letter dated 29 August 2023 set out the following allegations

evidence provided does not support NMC readmission/revalidation declaration NMC readmission/revalidation requirements have not been met

93. A meeting was set for 1 September 2023 but was rearranged at the claimant’s request so that her union representative from the [COMPANY_30] could attend with her. A further invitation letter was sent for a hearing on 4 September 2023. That hearing was also postponed when the claimant wrote to say that it was too short notice. The claimant wrote to [NAME_5]

I am perturbed to discover that a report has been made to the NMC. Can you please confirm who made the report and when this was made and what the terms of reference were……. I have acted in accordance with the NMC guidance and have the emails what they sent to me…. As you may be aware this is causing me severe anxiety and distress…. I will get back to you when I’ve spoken to my union rep and legal team..

Case No 2400374/2024

17

94. [NAME_5] cancelled the meeting for 6 September 2023 and requested alternative dates. [NAME_5] confirmed that it was [NAME_15] of Nursing Professional Standards who had made the referral to NMC. [NAME_5] provided details of the [NAME_31]. The claimant requested a copy of the disciplinary policy which was provided to her. On 11 September 2023 a further invite to disciplinary hearing was sent to the claimant convening a meeting for 13 September 2023. The allegations set out in that invitation were as follows:

concerns that the evidence provided does not support the NMC readmission revalidation declaration namely the following sections 20 hours of [NAME_23] hours and 35 hours of CPD confirmation of reflective discussion with an NMC registrant ( name and pin provided)

95. The invitation letter warned that the outcome could be a disciplinary sanction up to and including dismissal. [NAME_5] prepared for the hearing by reading the investigatory report and by looking for herself at the communications between the claimant and the NMC. The claimant was saying that she had been confused about registration. [NAME_5] followed the links to Guidance that the NMC had sent to the claimant to see if the claimant’s position about being confused was credible.

96. The hearing took place on 13 September 2023. The claimant was represented by her union representative at the disciplinary hearing. The hearing was chaired by the Head of Clinical and Customer Standards for the respondent, [NAME_5], herself a physiotherapy lead with considerable experience in professional registration matters across the nursing and allied health professions, who had had no prior dealings with the claimant.

97. Notes were taken and signed as agreed by the claimant. [NAME_5] explained that she had not seen sufficient evidence to support the claimant’s readmission revalidation. She set out that she was not concerned about Part A the practice hours, she was satisfied the claimant had 750 hours over five years . The area that concerned her was the [NAME_23] hours part B, and not having seen evidence of any reflective discussion having taken place and not being aware who was the registrant with whom the claimant claimed to have had that discussion. The declaration had been made in the claimant’s application that reflective discussion had taken place and that the name of a confirmer and pin number had been provided. [NAME_5] pointed out that at investigatory interview the claimant had said that she didn’t have a reflective discussion because she didn’t need to but that she appears to have declared one on her revalidation application. The claimant said that she had thought it was in the past five years, that she had been off sick and was really confused. [NAME_5] said that the requirements are very clear, that the respondent had seen the emails from NMC and had followed the links. [NAME_5] asked the direct question did the claimant have a further reflective discussion regarding her practice for the revalidation between 2018 to 2022. The claimant said

no I wasn’t aware I had to.

Case No 2400374/2024

18

98. [NAME_5] pointed out that it was clearly stated in the link that there needed to have been such a conversation. [NAME_5] asked had the claimant read all the boxes and the declarations before ticking them . The claimant said that she couldn’t remember, that it had been a long time ago, and that she had done what the NMC had asked to do. She said

all I’ve done is follow their guidance.

99. [NAME_5] explained that that was a concern to the respondent because having declared a conversation that had not taken place meant that the claimant’s registration won’t be valid. The claimant then said that she must have read the declarations. [NAME_5] asked was the claimant happy that she had read the declarations and that she provided the details of somebody that she had a reflective discussion with. The claimant then said that yes she had read them and she provided the details of [NAME_9]. She said that she was under the impression that an older discussion would do. [NAME_5] said it was very clear that for the [NAME_23] you could only go back three years and reflective discussions need to be covering that period.There was then a detailed discussion with [NAME_5] going through each of the documents claiming [NAME_23] with the claimant. [NAME_5] said that none of the evidence the claimant produced would amount to [NAME_23] in the last three years. [NAME_5] said that the claimant had declared falsely. The claimant said that wasn’t her intention. The claimant accepted that she did not meet the requirements for the NMC revalidation. The claimant’s representative then read aloud the statement of case that she had prepared in advance and had been emailed to [NAME_5]. [NAME_5] asked questions about that statement in particular the claimant’s suggestion that she had sought help from the respondent and not had it. [NAME_5] asked if there was any correspondence to support that assertion. The claimant said she would need to go through her emails again to find things because she was very upset. No such content was ever provided. [NAME_5] set out that there were two separate processes underway, the internal process and the NMC investigation. She explained that from the respondent’s point of view it would have to form a view as to whether or not the claimant had declared falsely. [NAME_5] said that the claimant had provided mitigating circumstances but that she had ticked and signed declarations.

100. The hearing was adjourned for [NAME_5] to look further into the matter. [NAME_5] did not see the actual application that the claimant had made through the NMC portal. She spoke to NMC. She checked what declarations had been made by the claimant. NMC confirmed that the claimant had made the declarations.

101. [NAME_5] concluded that those declarations had not been made honestly. The claimant had declared she had had a [NAME_18] discussion with [NAME_9]. The claimant had admitted that no such conversation had taken place. The claimant had claimed 20 participatory continuing professional development hours in the last three years and had admitted at the disciplinary hearing that the evidence she relied on was insufficient to meet the requirements of [NAME_23]. [NAME_5] read the correspondence between the claimant and NMC set out above. [NAME_5] No 2400374/2024

19

followed link 1 and link 2 and read all of the guidance contained on those websites. [NAME_5] spoke to NMC herself to check that the claimant in her application dated 4 January 2022 had declared that she had had a reflective discussion. NMC confirmed that the claimant had made a declaration to that effect.

102. [NAME_5] took time to make a decision. She took into account the claimant’s written statement of case that had been read aloud and the mitigating circumstances set out in that document including the claimants ill- health, the length of her absence, the claimant’s previous length of service as a nurse, the claimant’s previous revalidation in 2018, changes to the revalidation process in 2016, the claimant’s assertion that she had been confused when making the application in January 2022.

103. [NAME_5] sent a letter dated 19 September 2023 inviting the claimant and her representative to a reconvened hearing on 28 September 2023. She said that the purpose of the meeting was to consider additional information provided. That information was the email exchanges dated 18 September 2023 between the claimant and NMC and the claimant’s written statement of case. In her letter [NAME_5] listed the evidence that she had previously considered; The investigation summary, the meeting notes from the investigator reinterview meeting notes of a discussion with [NAME_27] , correspondences with NMC the NMC practice log template, feedback log template, CPD log template, reflective accounts form, professional development discussion form and all of the material in the NMC link emails at LINK 1 AND 2.

104. On 27 September 2023 the claimant signed to agree the notes of the 13 September disciplinary meeting. She wrote to [NAME_5] making the following submissions which [NAME_5] took into account

that she revalidated during Covid that she had made enquiries of NMC and that it had been confirmed to her that 750 hours in the previous five years was sufficient for her to revalidate that should sought help from HR to get her total number of hours worked if there is an issue with my revalidation which I don’t accept that the issue is with the NMC and my employer that no issue was raised with regard to participatory hours by NMC expected them to have reverted to me in regards to this at the time of revalidation that the claimant was on long-term sick, numerous medications, suffering various health issues including mental health, bereavements and family member illness the claimant had revalidated without assistance from the employer any issue with revalidation was merely an unintentional error based upon direction given by NMC at the time that the claimant had had no support to complete the revalidation process that the claimant was and always had been a registered nurse and had an exemplary career

105. The hearing reconvened on 3 October 2023 for [NAME_5] to give her outcome. She explained that she had taken time to consider the outcome

Case No 2400374/2024

20

and had considered all the information put forward including the difficult situation the claimant had been in and all of her mitigating factors. [NAME_5] said she felt there was a lack of [NAME_22] and responsibility from the claimant. She said that she had advised the claimant at the end of the first disciplinary hearing to contact the NMC and she was concerned that the claimant had not done that. [NAME_5] communicated that the decision was dismissal with notice. She said that she considered lesser sanctions including a non clinical role but that she had concerns about honesty and trust and the claimant’s failure to take responsibility for her actions.

106. The claimant said she was disgusted at the outcome. [NAME_5] assured the claimant that she had not taken the decision lightly and that full reasons for the decision would be sent in writing. The claimant said

I just feel like I’m being victimised and being discriminated against for being off sick and I did say to you if I’ve made an error than I’ve made an error and I do apologise for that but I would never put my registration at risk or risk the business. That’s not me. I’m not a dishonest person.

107. Her representative asked about the pathway for appeal and [NAME_5] explained that all information would be provided and there would be a five [NAME_7] time limit for appeal. [NAME_5] prepared a draft dismissal letter and sought HR advice on its content. [NAME_5] finalised her dismissal letter and it was sent dated 4 October 2023 to the claimant.

108. The decision was confirmed to the claimant by a letter attached to an email dated 4 October 2023. The letter was four pages long and dealt in detail with the allegations. [NAME_5] confirmed that she was not at all concerned about Part A. In relation to part B she said she had reviewed the guidance provided by NMC and found it to be clear. The [NAME_23] had to be within the three year revalidation. The evidence the claimant had provided to the respondent did not amount to 35 hours, there were no hours of [NAME_23] at all, the claimant had claimed sessions of CBT that she had undertaken as a patient as [NAME_23], and that some of the CPD log was dated after the revalidation readmission date. In relation to part C, the reflective discussion [NAME_5] found that the claimant had declared to the NMC that a discussion took place and had provided the name of the registrant with whom it had taken place. [NAME_5] found that that declaration was false, no reflective discussion had taken place. As part of her decision- making [NAME_5] had confirmed with [NAME_9] that she did not hold a reflective discussion with the claimant. [NAME_5] commented that had a reflective discussion taken place the registrant would have given guidance that the CPD evidence would have been insufficient to meet the requirements for revalidation.

109. [NAME_5] said that the claimant had signed the health and character declaration, Part D, declaring herself fit to practice despite telling the employer that she had health problems and difficult personal circumstances and that she found the NMC guidance confusing. [NAME_5] pointed out that there was an option for the claimant to remain off the register until she was able to return to a clinical role.

Case No 2400374/2024

21

110. [NAME_5] found the claimant’s behaviour in relation to providing false declarations to the NMC substantial misconduct, a definite breach of trust and confidence which could not be redressed in any way other than dismissal. [NAME_5] set out that she had considered alternatives to dismissal but did not think it appropriate to impose a lesser sanction. She had even considered a nonclinical role but did not consider that appropriate because the claimant had failed to take [NAME_22] for the false declarations that she made to the NMC. [NAME_5] also commented that the claimant had not taken any proactive action to correct the position with the NMC and that for her that raised an issue of probity. The letter set out practical matters including payment of final pay and outstanding accrued holiday pay. The letter provided information about appeal within five working days of receipt of the outcome of the dismissal letter to [NAME_16].

111. On 11 October 2023 the claimant wrote to [NAME_6] setting out over three pages her written grounds of appeal. In her appeal grounds the claimant alleged that the decision had been made for Machiavellian reasons. She said she overheard discussions about the company being overstaffed with nurses and that she was aware there was a trend for those returning from long-term sickness to be dismissed. She said she was considering a Freedom of Information Act request to get disclosure of data about long-term sick returners being dismissed or leaving she said she had suffered significant mental health issues because of the respondent’s conduct of her disciplinary proceedings.

112. The appeal hearing took place on 2 November 2023 before [NAME_6]. The claimant was represented by [NAME_32] from [NAME_33]. There was discussion at appeal about the relevant guidance for the revalidation readmission application. [NAME_6] had seen the correspondence between the claimant and NMC and had followed the links at Link 1 and Link 2.

113. The claimant’s overarching submission at appeal was that she had not been dishonest. She said that she had been really confused at the time. [NAME_6] said that the fundamental issue was that going through the revalidation process the claimant was saying that she done all the work necessary for revalidation at Part B and Part C and declared that her health was good at Part D when that was not the case. The claimant said that she had not done it intentionally.

114. Her representative raised three points that [NAME_6] agreed to take away and respond to later. The first was that the claimant had not been told at disciplinary hearing that dismissal was a possible outcome. The second was the claimant wished to know the date she been referred to the NMC. The third was about whether or not the respondent had corresponded with the claimant about her upcoming revalidation.

115. Her representative submitted that she was not dishonest, that any errors were due to ill health, that this was her first ever disciplinary event and that her length of service as a nurse and exemplary record should be taken into account so that the sanction should be reduced to a written sanction accompanied by support to restore trust.

Case No 2400374/2024

22

116. [NAME_6] went away to consider the appeal. She wrote to the claimant on 8 November 2023 in response to the three takeaway points. She confirmed that the claimant had been informed in the disciplinary hearing invitation letters that dismissal was a possible outcome. She clarified that [NAME_15] had referred the claimant to the NMC on 22 August 2023. She confirmed that the respondent had written to the claimant through her line manager then [NAME_34] to encourage her to gain 360° colleague feedback in July 2021, well in advance of her revalidation deadline. The respondent also provided a revalidation portfolio to her in 2016 to use over a revalidation period to collate evidence for revalidation submission, but the claimant had been off sick from 2017. [NAME_6] said that [NAME_34] had confirmed this having kept in touch with the claimant during sickness absence and having raised the issue of impending revalidation during those conversations. [NAME_6] said [NAME_34] had told that the claimant had said that NMC had agreed an extension and when [NAME_34] contacted the claimant to make a follow up enquiry about her registration the claimant had told her “it is all sorted out”

117. On 14 November 2023 [NAME_6] sent the outcome of the appeal letter to the claimant. It was a four-page letter and it set out the grounds of appeal and [NAME_6]’s response to each of them. [NAME_6] was satisfied that the investigatory interview had established that the claimant had not completed the required CPD nor undertaken the reflective discussion and yet had declared that both of those things had taken place. [NAME_6] recited that the claimant accepted that the information she provided to NMC was erroneous. [NAME_6] recited that the claimant had had the opportunity to advise the NMC at the time of the application that her health was such that it impacted on ability to complete the revalidation process but that she had not done so. [NAME_6] concluded

overall the evidence in front of me is such that although I accept you remained unfit to return to work your clarity of thought was not so impaired that you would have been incapable of correctly responding to the NMC around the statements you are required to make in your revalidation application……. Having been offered the opportunity by NMC of relinquishing your registration until such times as your health improved you took the decision to proceed with the revalidation process….

118. [NAME_6] upheld the decision to dismiss. She said the evidence points to substantial misconduct which points to an issue of probity. She felt the decision to proceed to disciplinary hearing was appropriate. She said any action undertaken by the NMC was a matter for them to determine. She said the respondent had reasonable grounds to consider there to be an issue of probity with the claimant and that it was appropriate for the respondent to address this separately from any NMC action.

119. The respondent paid final pay and accrued holiday pay. The employment ended on 26 December 2023.

120. On 2 January 2024 the claimant contacted ACAS and achieved a Certificate. On 22 January 2024 she brought her tribunal claim.

Case No 2400374/2024

23

121. The NMC convened a hearing to determine charges that the claimant’s registration was fraudulently procured or incorrectly made. The claimant instructed legal counsel. The hearing was held on 4 September 2024 in part in private for health reasons. The claimant gave evidence on oath. The claimant accepted that her entries to the [NAME_35] had been made incorrectly. Following the hearing it published its Public Reasons. The panel found that the NMC had not met the burden of proof necessary to establish an intention to deceive. The panel found the entry was incorrect. The panel took into account the claimant’s long career and personal context and concluded that the errors were due to genuine misunderstanding. It determined to take no action against the claimant.

Applying the Law Unfair dismissal

122. The claimant was dismissed by [NAME_5].

123. The Tribunal finds the reason for dismissal was a potentially fair reason in that it was some other substantial reason justifying dismissal. [NAME_5] was satisfied that the claimant had made a declaration to the NMC that she had undertaken reflective discussion with an NMC registrant during the three years pride prior to her application for revalidation readmission and that this was not true. [NAME_5] found that the claimant had made a false declaration. The Tribunal accepts [NAME_5]’s evidence that making a false declaration is a serious matter. Substantiality 124. The Tribunal finds [NAME_5] did not act whimsically or capriciously when classifying the claimant’s false declarations as a substantial matter. [NAME_5] knew that the claimant was a registered nurse whose role involved her working with vulnerable patients, patients who were seeking to persuade the claimant that their health conditions amounted to disabilities so that they could access benefits. The claimant was in a trusted role of making assessments about other people’s health that could lead to access to public money. The exercise of her professional judgement, her truthfulness and veracity and probity were integral to the performance of her duties. She worked under a contract that the respondent had with a government department, the DWP, the terms of which required the respondent to ensure that all its nurses had unrestricted NMC registration.

125. [NAME_5] was satisfied that although the claimant was technically registered with NMC, that registration must have been falsely procured because the claimant had not met the revalidation registration requirements despite declaring herself to have done so. [NAME_5] knew this to be true in two regards; in relation to part B, the continuing professional development 35 hours of CPD over the previous three years of which 20 must be [NAME_23]. [NAME_5] knew because she had discussed this with the claimant and been through each of the evidence logs that the claimant alleged amounted to CPD, that the claimant did not meet 35 hours of development that would meet the standard of NMC CPD and whilst this was a matter for

Case No 2400374/2024

24

the claimant to decide what activities she put forward as CPD, [NAME_5] knew that the claimant, not having been in work for over five years, could not possibly meet the NMC revalidation requirement. [NAME_5] knew that the 20 hours [NAME_23] had not been met, the claimant had accepted during the disciplinary hearing that she had not had 20 hours of interaction as a healthcare professional with other healthcare professionals. [NAME_5] also knew that in relation to part C, the claimant had not had a reflective discussion with an NMC registrant, that she had claimed to have had. It had accepted during the disciplinary meeting that she had not had that conversation and that she had made a declaration that she had.

126. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_5] acted reasonably when classifying the claimant’s conduct a substantial in relation to either of those instances alone, and both taken together. [NAME_5] had a substantial reason for considering dismissal.

Sufficiency 127. the Tribunal went on to consider whether [NAME_5]’s reason was sufficient to justify dismissal.

128. [NAME_5] gave evidence about her concern at the claimant’s lack of ownership of what had happened. In the letter of dismissal she used the words [NAME_22] and responsibility. Her evidence to the Tribunal was compelling; she was concerned not only at the false declarations that had been made but at the claimant’s failure to acknowledge what she had done and its impact on her ability to perform her role. [NAME_5] was concerned that having given guidance to the claimant at the end of the first disciplinary meeting on 13 September 2023 that she contact the NMC urgently to put things right, by the reconvened hearing on 28 September 2023 and the outcome meeting on 3 October 2023 the claimant had still not done that. For [NAME_5] that raised issues also of probity. [NAME_5] felt the claimant could not be trusted to be honest, nor when her wrongdoing was brought to her attention to act with probity to acknowledge it and put it right.

129. [NAME_5] considered whether the claimant could be redeployed into an operational role or kept on non-customer facing duties. [NAME_5] knew that the contract with DWP required nurses with unrestricted registration. Whilst the claimant technically had registration [NAME_5] knew that it had been falsely obtained. [NAME_5] concluded that there was no role within the DWP contract that the respondent could allow the claimant to perform whilst it was fixed with knowledge that she had falsely obtained NMC revalidation and registration.

130. [NAME_5] knew that the claimant was a long serving nurse with a previous exemplary disciplinary record. [NAME_5] knew that the claimant had had a long period of sickness absence because of both her physical and mental health and that she had had difficult life circumstances including bereavements, and the serious ill-health of her partner, in the run-up to her application for revalidation readmission. The Tribunal accepts [NAME_5]’s evidence that none of those individually nor all of them taken together weighed sufficiently against the respondent’s lack of trust in a nurse, whose job it was to assess the veracity of other’s people’s claims to be disabled,

Case No 2400374/2024

25

who had herself made a false declaration to a professional body.

131. [NAME_5] was also aware that the claimant had signed the health declaration. It troubled [NAME_5] that in January 2022 the claimant had declared herself currently fit at that time to practice as a nurse and yet was now saying, in an attempt to exonerate herself from having made false declarations, that she was so confused and unwell in January 2022 that she had been unable to understand the declarations that she made. [NAME_5] was also concerned that the claimant had sought to blame the NMC, she said that she just ticked the boxes they wanted her to tick, she said that she followed the guidance, when [NAME_5] knew because she followed that guidance herself that the claimant had not complied with the revalidation readmission requirements, that it was not just a tick box exercise but a clear declaration with warnings in the strongest terms accompanying those declarations. For [NAME_5] this attempt to blame the NMC raised further questions about the claimant’s probity and integrity. [NAME_5] was also concerned that the claimant had tried to implicate the respondent. She had suggested that the disciplinary hearing that she had no help from the respondent. [NAME_5] asked the claimant to provide evidence of that and had adjourned the hearing allowing time, but no such content was ever provided. The claimant produced nothing to make [NAME_5] think that she asked the respondent for help and not been given it. Further, [NAME_5] knew in the NMC guidance was clear that it is the responsibility of the professionally registered healthcare professional herself to maintain her registration.

132. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_5] acted reasonably in taking into account both the claimant circumstances and the requirements of the respondent, together with the broader context and all the circumstances of the case when deciding that the claimant’s conduct was sufficient to justify dismissal.

133. At this point, the claimant’s case fails. The respondent has shown a potentially fair reason within section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996, and that it is acted reasonably in all the circumstances in dismissing the claimant.

134. The respondent’s alternate case, was that the potentially fair reason related to conduct. 135. The Tribunal accepts [NAME_5]’s evidence that she genuinely believed that the claimant had made false declarations in relation to part B and part C, and that she had cause for concern as to the claimant’s veracity in the health declaration she made at part D given that the claimant subsequently claimed to have been so unwell that she was confused about the declarations she made.

136. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_5] had reasonable grounds for those beliefs. In relation to part B. [NAME_5] took great care to follow the guidance in link one and link two that had been provided to the claimant. [NAME_5] did not rely on her own prior knowledge or assumptions about NMC registration. She made every effort to look through the claimant’s eyes at what was known to the claimant at the time of revalidation readmission application in January 2022. [NAME_5] looked at the correspondence between the claimant and

Case No 2400374/2024

26

the NMC in October November 2021, again taking great care to see what reasonable beliefs the claimant might have formed as to what was required of her. [NAME_5] also spoke to NMC to check for herself, having not seen the exact application that the claimant made, because it was made on the portal and the claimant had not retained a copy, that the claimant had actually made the declarations in relation to part B. She achieved that confirmation from the NMC. She looked at screenprints of the online portal declarations in the terms of the declarations that the claimant made. The declarations made are set out in the facts above. [NAME_5] saw those declarations in relation to Part B. Further, the claimant admitted, despite having at investigatory interview sought to obfuscate and deny any wrongdoing, at disciplinary hearing that she did not have the requisite [NAME_23] hours, that she did not have 35 CPD hours and that if she had had the reflective discussion that she said she had had, that would have been apparent to her. In relation to part B, for those reasons [NAME_5] had reasonable grounds for believing that the claimant had made a false declaration.

137. In relation to part C, the declaration about the [NAME_18] discussion, [NAME_5] had reasonable grounds for believing that it had not taken place because the claimant admitted that no such conversation had taken place at disciplinary interview. The claimant had sought to obfuscate by saying, implausibly, that she thought she could rely on a five year period and use the conversation that she had had with [NAME_9] in 2018. When pressed at disciplinary hearing the claimant had accepted that she had declared that she had a conversation that she had not had, and that she had named a colleague and provided the pin number of that colleague to the NMC as evidence of that conversation having taken place.

138. In relation to part D, [NAME_5] had reasonable grounds for believing that the claimant has committed an act of misconduct because the claimant had declared herself as at 4 January 2022 to be fit to practice in relation to both health and character. [NAME_5] formed the reasonable view that that declaration was questionable because the claimant was now saying that she been too unwell to fully understand the process and the declarations that she made and yet had declared herself to be fit and well. [NAME_5] rightly saw this in the context of a nurse whose job it is to make assessments about other people’s disabilities. [NAME_5] also formed the reasonable view that the declaration was questionable in relation to the claimant’s character, because the claimant had said she had a conversation that she had not had at part C, and yet gone on at part D to declare herself to be a person of appropriate character to practice as a professional nurse.

139. In relation to investigation, [NAME_5] knew that that the concerns about the claimant’s registration had arisen from the AMB, that it had come to [NAME_15] attention, that [NAME_15] had asked that the claimant be asked to provide the evidence that she had used in support of her revalidation readmission application, that the claimant had failed to provide that, that [NAME_15] had suspicions about what the claimant must have said to gain revalidation readmission, that [NAME_17] had been appointed to investigate, that there had been an investigatory interview with the claimant, that the claimant had had support from [NAME_33], that the claimant after some delay had produced

Case No 2400374/2024

27

documents that she said were the evidence she relied on in making her revalidation readmission application.

140. [NAME_5] herself went through the documentary evidence. She formed the view that it would have been insufficient in relation to part B and part C to attain revalidation readmission. She shared that view with the claimant. [NAME_5] spoke to NMC herself to check what declarations the claimant had made. She looked at the text of those declarations from a template document. She discussed each of those declarations with the claimant. She adjourned the first hearing and went away to undertake further investigation and to allow the claimant time to make further submissions.

141. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_5] was satisfied that there had been a reasonable investigation into the allegations. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_5] formed the genuine belief on reasonable grounds having carried out such investigation as was reasonable in all the circumstances that the claimant was guilty of misconduct.

142. The allegation had been set out in the letter inviting the claimant to investigatory interview. It had been restated in the letters, one was sent each time the hearing was rescheduled, inviting the claimant to disciplinary hearing. 143. The allegations were at the investigatory stage

144. By disciplinary hearing the allegation was

evidence provided does not support NMC readmission/revalidation declaration

NMC readmission/revalidation requirements have not been met

145. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_5] held a genuine belief on reasonable grounds having carried out such investigation as was reasonable in all the circumstances that the claimant’s evidence provided did not support NMC readmission revalidation and that the claimant’s NMC readmission revalidation requirements had not been met.

146. Having found a potentially fair reason for dismissal the Tribunal then went on to consider section 98 (4) which provides that 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 depends on whether in the circumstances including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee and shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.

147. The reasoning above in relation to the sufficiency of the decision to dismiss applies here.

Case No 2400374/2024

28

148. Further, the Tribunal considered whether or not the respondent acted outside the range of reasonable responses. That is to say, whether or not dismissal was something that no reasonable employer would do in the circumstances.

149. The Tribunal accepts [NAME_5]’s evidence as to why, having considered the claimant’s mitigating factors, in the context of the respondent’s contract with DWP, the requirements of a professional nurse making disability assessments about vulnerable people that could determine their access to benefits or not and draw on the public purse, and the claimant’s admitted false declaration, she considered dismissal was the appropriate sanction. That decision did not fall outside the range of responses of a reasonable employer.The Tribunal finds that the respondent acted reasonably in deciding to dismiss.

150. The claimant’s claim, even if there had not been some other substantial reason for dismissal, would have failed because the respondent has shown that it acted reasonably in dismissing for misconduct.

151. The Tribunal comments, it reminded itself that it is not its place to substitute its decision for that of the respondent, but there was discussion here about whether or not what the claimant did would have amounted to gross misconduct. If the respondent had dismissed for gross misconduct in relation to dishonesty, on the evidence the Tribunal has heard from both the claimant and [NAME_5], the tribunal would have found that to be a fair dismissal.

152. The claimant has been adamant that she has not been dishonest. [NAME_4] worked hard with her to explain that if she makes a declaration that she has had [NAME_18] discussion knowing that she has not had that discussion, then that is not true, false, dishonest. The claimant accepted the declaration was false but would not accept that she had been dishonest in making it.

153. The Tribunal found the claimant’s evidence to be evasive, contradictory, seeking to use confusion to exonerate herself, said under cross-examination in response to the question “ do you accept you did not have required 35 hours of which 20 were participatory” – the claimant said she did not agree, that she thought and thinks that she did have the necessary hours over 5 years prior to revalidation. She was reverting here to the position she had taken at investigatory interview, despite at disciplinary hearing and appeal having accepted that she did not have the CPD.

154. [NAME_4] took her to the notes of disciplinary hearing at which she had accepted, having been taken through the application declarations and the [NAME_18] logs in support of it, that she did not. When asked again did she now accept that she knew at the time of the disciplinary hearing that she did not meet he requirements the claimant said Yes. She accepted in oral evidence and at the disciplinary meeting that she had declared that she had had a [NAME_18] that she had not had. When [NAME_4] asked the claimant about previous CPD submissions and declarations, to press the point that the claimant couldn’t have been as

Case No 2400374/2024

29

confused as she claimed because she had done this before, the claimant become hostile saying she could not see how it was relevant and she then asked for a break. A break was given with the Judge noting that it was asked for when the claimant had been asked to answer a difficult question and that [NAME_4] may return to press his point.

155. The claimant came back to say that she could not remember what CPD requirements there had been before the change to include [NAME_18] conversations in 2016. She had done a revalidation application in 2018 when she had had a conversation and made her declaration accordingly.

156. The Tribunal finds the claimant was not credible when she says she was confused in January 2022 as to the requirement to have had a conversation in that round of RR that is between 2018 and 2022. It is not credible that she thought she could use the previous RPC because the logs in support of it related to examples from 2018 to 2022. If she had thought the 2018 conversation was sufficient she would also have thought the 2018 logs, the subject matter of the conversation in 2018, were sufficient. Why if they were had she created new logs of events post 2018 to support the 2022 application. When this was put to her the claimant accepted the logs were new and that she had relied on them in her 2022 application.

157. The claimant messaged [NAME_9] after, but on the same [NAME_7] that, she had made the 4 January 2022 application online. She said I have given your name. Why would she do that if she thought the 2018 conversation was being relied on ? It only made sense for her to do that if she were aware that this was in relation to a new claimed conversation. The Tribunal finds this message reveals the claimant’s own awareness of her vulnerability in declaring a conversation that had not taken place. She was seeking to smooth the position with [NAME_9] in the event that NMC might contact her. In this way she was putting her colleague in a difficult position. She gave a registered NMC colleagues name and number to MNC under false pretences and did not tell that colleague the extent of the falsification she was relying on.

158. The Tribunal turns to deal with the claimant’s case as set out in the list of issues as to why the respondent acted unreasonably in treating the reason as sufficient to dismiss

it failed to interview [NAME_9] re being a confirmer 159. [NAME_5] had not felt it necessary to interview [NAME_9] because at disciplinary hearing the claimant accepted that she had not had with [NAME_5] the reflective discussion. The Tribunal accepts her oral evidence. It’s difficult to see what difference the claimant thinks it would have made if the respondent had interviewed [NAME_5]. [NAME_3] was asked to explain how this might be relevant, how he thought it would have helped the claimant’s case. At its highest the claimant’s case was that [NAME_9] may have had an opinion that the claimant was confused in January 2022. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_9] opinion as to the claimant state of mind in January 2022 is not a relevant factor in [NAME_5]’s decision-making.

it failed to properly interpret the NMC guidance to the claimant

Case No 2400374/2024

30

160. The Tribunal rejects this argument. It was most impressed by [NAME_5]’s evidence in the care she had taken to follow link one and link to and read the correspondence between the claimant and NMC from October November 2021. She had made every effort to try and see the position through the claimant’s eyes. [NAME_5] was of the view, reasonably formed, that the guidance was clear.

161. The claimant sought to obfuscate by arguing that the email that NMC had sent in relation to part A, 750 hours over five years, meant that in the alternative (i) that was all she needed. this was not credible because if this had been her position why then did she by her own account create evidence logs and [NAME_18] forms and swear that she had a conversation, or (ii) that they five years related to part B and part C as well this was not credible because if she truly believe that then why did she create evidence logs that went back only three years, why did she not rely on the same submission that she had used in 2018, and why did she need to send the message to [NAME_9] at all.

it drew false conclusions from the dates on the submissions – it should have been obvious the dates were errors

162. [NAME_5] had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the claimant’s evidence logs and reflection forms may have been created at some point after 4 January 2022 application was made. The reasonable grounds for that were because the dates on the documents were not clear, some were dated 4 January 2022, some appeared to relate to incidents in the previous three years, some appeared to relate to incidents that post dated the admission application. Further, the claimant delayed in providing the information. She was asked for it on 18 July 2021. She was chased for it on the 19th, 20th asked for it in person by a line manager on 25 July 2021 and became hostile in response saying that she would need to involve her union representative, when she was reassured that if she provided it an investigation may not be necessary, she still did not respond. The Tribunal is not clear at what point that evidence was provided but it was certainly available to [NAME_5] at the disciplinary hearing. The delay, reluctance, and hostile response gave [NAME_5] reasonable grounds for being suspicious about those logs. In the event, it made no material difference because [NAME_5] did not dismiss based on suspicions about the date of creation of the logs. No conclusions were made about the dates.

it failed to identify errors around the identity of the correct confirmer

163. The Tribunal finds this did not happen. The claimant admitted that she had named [NAME_9] as confirmer, provided [NAME_5]’s name and pin to NMC without her permission, told [NAME_5] after having provided that information that it had been given and did not at that point tell [NAME_5] that the claimant had claimed to have a discussion with [NAME_5] in the previous three years that she had not had.

164. The respondent did not make any errors about the identity of the correct confirmer. It carried out a reasonable investigation which revealed that

Case No 2400374/2024

31

[NAME_27]’s name had been given as referee and [NAME_9]’ name as confirmer.

it failed to attach adequate weight in mitigation to the claimant’s confusion around NMC process

165. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_5] gave appropriate weight to the claimants ill-health and personal circumstances in October November 2021 and at the time of making the application in January 2022. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_5] reached a reasonable, proportionate and balanced conclusion that the claimant couldn’t have it both ways, she couldn’t have been on 4 January 2022 both so confused and unwell as to be unable to understand what she was declaring, and declaring herself fit to practice at that time. Further, [NAME_5] had herself made great effort to look at the guidance given to the claimant by NMC in both the links and the email correspondences, through the claimants eyes at that time - and she reasonably concluded that the guidance was clear.

it failed to consider an alternate outcome other than dismissal

166. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_5] did consider alternative outcomes. For the reasons set out above she reached reasonable decision to dismiss.

it failed to properly interpret the guidance given to the claimant around hours

167. The Tribunal repeats the reasoning above that [NAME_5] had looked at the communications from the NMC. There was no confusion around hours. It was clear 750 practice hours over five years, 35 CPD hours of which 20 had to be participatory over the previous three years.

it failed to accept that only the NMC can determine the validity of the revalidation application

168. The claimant’s case has been anchored to the idea that as she was exonerated by the NMC, the respondent must have acted unreasonably in dismissing her. The tribunal set out from the outset the relevant law in unfair dismissal. [NAME_4] made an early opening submission which is accepted, that the findings of the NMC panel are not binding on the Tribunal, and are of little if any relevance to its decision making.

169. The Tribunal seeks to explain, again, here to the claimant that whilst it is up to NMC to maintain the register, if an employer suspects that an employee has got onto that register by making false declarations, then that employer is entitled to investigate how the person got onto the register. In this case, the respondent went further than that and said not only is the employer entitled to investigate if it suspects dishonesty by member of its staff, but it has a professional obligation itself to the NMC and a contractual obligation to the DWP, to ensure that a nurse it employs is properly registered.

acted with undue haste in July 2023 after asking for copies of documentary evidence of revalidation application, in moving to a decision to investigate

Case No 2400374/2024

32

within days and then to discipline

170. The Tribunal rejects this submission. [NAME_5] and [NAME_15] explained why, given their professional obligations to NMC and their contractual obligations to DWP, they act promptly where they have reasonable grounds for suspicion that a registration may not be valid. The respondent asked for the documentation first on 18 July 2023, and still had not had it a week later on 25 July 2023. It then commissioned an internal investigation. It moved to investigatory interview on 17 August 2023. Following that interview on 22 August 2023, having previously informed the NMC and taken guidance from it, the respondent made a formal referral of the matter to NMC. The disciplinary hearings were convened with adequate notice, the claimant was informed of her right to be represented, she was warned that the outcome might include dismissal, the hearings were postponed at her request, the hearing took place on 13 September 2023, was reconvened 28 September 2023, and concluded on 3 October 2023. The Tribunal finds there was no undue haste.

it failed to consider the content of a text message to [NAME_9] ( which admittedly C had forgotten about and did not bring to the attention of the disciplinary or appeal panel) which would have shown C’s genuine confusion at the time the application was made and not dishonesty

171. [NAME_5] and [NAME_6] when taken to the text message gave oral evidence which the Tribunal accepts that even if they had seen that message at the time of their respective decision-making, which they did not, it would have made no difference to their decision.

172. It was the claimant who had sent the message, the claimant failed to bring it to the attention of the respondent as part of her statement of case at disciplinary hearing and at appeal. When it subsequently came to light the claimant sought to argue that it showed her state of confusion. The Tribunal has attached no weight to it because it played no part in the decision-making of [NAME_5] or [NAME_6].

the process of investigation and discipline and appeal was a sham designed to remove C from employment; the respondent did not want her back:- it had offered her a chance to leave with notice pay before coming back, she declined, it moved rapidly and unreasonably to investigation, it was communicating with NMC and expecting suspension, it had an agenda to remove C.

173. The claimant made this overarching submission and it was put to [NAME_5] and [NAME_6]. The Tribunal accepts the oral evidence; neither of them had been aware at the time they made their decision that the claimant had been given an option of leaving with notice pay. The Tribunal accepts their evidence, and noted the different vocabulary that they each used in response (having listened carefully for any collusion)

174. [NAME_5] said when asked was there an agenda not to have nurses come back “absolutely not, there is a constant requirement for healthcare practitioners, I think we’ve only had a freeze for Dr recruitment, we have

Case No 2400374/2024

33

always got adverts out for nurses, we can’t get enough”

175. [NAME_6] said,”the core of the issue was that on the basis of the evidence in front of me I could see the claimant had made false declarations which resulted in her being revalidated”.

176. The Tribunal accepts [NAME_6]’s evidence that she did not uphold the decision to dismiss because she or anyone else wanted to reduce nurse headcount but because the claimant had provided incorrect information to the professional body, [NAME_6] gave evidence “that;s why I needed to terminate”

177. The claimant brought a claim for unpaid holiday pay. A representative did not put this case to the respondent witnesses. The respondent’s evidence was that it had paid all outstanding holiday pay to the claimant. In this claim the claimant fails to meet her burden of proof. The claim fails.

178. The claimant brought a claim for failure to provide pay slips, again, this claim was not advanced by the claimant and not put to the respondent’s witnesses. The unfair dismissal claim fails. This claim fails.

__________________________________________

Employment Judge Aspinall

Date: 30 April 2026

REASONS SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

2 June 2026

FOR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2400374/2024

34

Public access to employment tribunal decisions

Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.

Recording and Transcription

Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. 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:

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and- legislation-practice-directions/

Case No 2400374/2024

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant:

[redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Liverpool

On: 23 October 2025

Before:

EJ Aspinall

Representation

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Tribunal is:

1. The respondent’s application for its costs incurred following postponement of the final hearing that had been listed in this case for three days from 18 November 2024, made under Rule 74(2) (a) and (c) and Rule 74 (3) fails.

___________________________

Approved for promulgation by

Employment Judge Aspinall

Date: 23 October 2025

Case No 2400374/2024

2

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

3 December 2025

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

Notes

Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.

Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment- tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.

Recording and Transcription

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice- directions/

Case No 2400374/2024

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant:

[redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Liverpool

On: 23 October 2025

Before:

EJ Aspinall

Representation

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Tribunal is:

1. The claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal fails. 2. The claimant’s claim for holiday pay fails. 3. The claimant’s claim for failure to provide pay slips fails.

___________________________

Approved for promulgation by

Employment Judge Aspinall

Date: 23 October 2025

Case No 2400374/2024

2

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

3 December 2025

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

Notes

Recording and Transcription