--- title: "Rheumatology doctor’s sacking ruled fair despite no process followed" url: https://www.nsfw.info/rheumatology-doctor-sacking-ruled-fair-no-process/ published: 2026-11-04T14:31:07+00:00 modified: 2026-11-04T14:31:07+00:00 author: "Chief Editor" categories: ["Employment"] image: https://www.nsfw.info/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/rheumatology-doctor-sacking-ruled-fair-no-process-1024x572.webp summary: "A Jersey employment tribunal has ruled Dr Michael Richardson's dismissal was fair, citing patient mistreatment and public confidence, despite no formal process" publisher: NSFW (https://www.nsfw.info) --- # Rheumatology doctor’s sacking ruled fair despite no process followed **In brief:** An employment tribunal has ruled that the dismissal of Dr Michael Richardson, the consultant at the centre of Jersey’s rheumatology scandal, was fair, finding compelling evidence of patient mistreatment and concluding that his return would have damaged public confidence in healthcare. The tribunal upheld the sacking despite finding that no formal process, warning or right of appeal was given. Dr Richardson has been granted permission to appeal to the Royal Court on all four grounds put forward by his lawyers. ## The Tribunal’s Verdict The Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal has ruled against Dr Michael Richardson in his claims for unfair dismissal and age and disability discrimination against the States Employment Board, according to the Jersey Evening Post. The judgment, published on 3 November 2026, found “compelling evidence of mistreatment of patients” during his time as senior consultant in Jersey’s rheumatology department. The tribunal acknowledged a striking procedural irregularity: Dr Richardson received no warning that he might be dismissed, no formal process was followed, and he was given no right of appeal. He had been suspended since January 2022 and believed the meeting on 13 June 2025, at which he was sacked with immediate effect and paid in lieu of notice, would concern arrangements for his return to work. The panel was candid about the rarity of what it was deciding. “It will be very rare that dismissal without process and without appeal will be fair,” it said. “We consider this to be one of those rare cases.” The principal reason accepted by the tribunal was not clinical competence but reputational damage: medical director Simon West had concluded that Dr Richardson’s continued employment was untenable, citing the threat to public confidence, the impact on staff and patient morale, and an irretrievable breakdown in trust. The tribunal accepted that a formal process or appeal would have been “futile”, noting that Mr West had personally met affected patients and bereaved families. ## The Scale of the Scandal The backdrop to this case is sobering. An independent review by the Royal College of Physicians found the standard of care in Jersey’s rheumatology department to be “well below what the review team would consider acceptable.” More than 500 patients were found to have been prescribed medications they did not need, or for which there was insufficient medical evidence to justify treatment. An internal audit covering 2,270 patients resulted in 97 letters informing patients or bereaved relatives of moderate, severe or catastrophic harm. Of those, 33 went to relatives of deceased patients, and in each of those 33 cases harm was assessed as “catastrophic.” All 33 cases were referred to the Viscount’s Department, which will independently determine whether formal inquests are required. Earlier this year, however, police concluded that the legal test for gross negligence manslaughter had not been met, and no criminal investigation will be launched. ## Richardson’s Arguments and Their Fate Dr Richardson had claimed he was the victim of a “witch hunt” and argued that the stated reasons for his dismissal were a “façade,” suggesting management acted because they knew he was about to be cleared by the General Medical Council. A GMC-commissioned assessment had indeed found his professional performance was not deficient and that he was fit to practise generally. The tribunal, however, was unimpressed by this argument, stressing that the GMC assessment evaluated his ability in general medicine at the time of the assessment, rather than investigating historic allegations. Restrictions preventing him from working in rheumatology remained in place. “The GMC assessment did not exonerate Dr Richardson,” the panel stated plainly. The tribunal also rejected suggestions that he had been made a scapegoat for systemic failings or targeted because of his views on Overdale. It criticised his response to the concerns raised, finding that he demonstrated “a tendency to prioritise his own position and reputation over the interests and concerns of others.” The initial concerns against him had also included two items of a sexual nature and a poster of a colleague with inappropriate additions displayed in his office. Dr Richardson denied owning the offensive items but acknowledged knowing about them and said he should have disposed of them. His age-discrimination claim failed because he had not established that lengthy suspensions particularly disadvantaged older employees. His disability claim, based on stress, failed because he had not shown the impairment met the legal test at the relevant time. The tribunal was not entirely uncritical of the Health Department’s conduct. “Critical” meeting notes were absent or undisclosed, and factual errors in a witness statement from the head of medical staffing gave “a rather unfair impression” of Dr Richardson. One witness supporting him, former consultant radiologist Dr Andrew Borthwick-Clarke, said he had resigned after fearing a disproportionate response to an inappropriate comment he made during training, and considered the hospital’s reaction “unduly woke.” ## The Road to the Royal Court In a separate judgment published on the same day, the tribunal granted Dr Richardson permission to appeal against the unfair-dismissal ruling on all four grounds advanced by his lawyers at Appleby (Jersey) LLP. He is not appealing the rejection of his discrimination claims. His lawyers argue that the concerns about public confidence stemmed from alleged shortcomings in his clinical capability, meaning the dismissal should have been handled as a capability matter, and they also challenge the finding that dismissal without investigation, formal process or appeal could be fair. The tribunal accepted these were arguable legal points which, if successful before the Royal Court, could overturn its decision. Dr Richardson had sought to delay publication of the judgment pending appeal, arguing that publicity could undermine his prospects of reinstatement, re-engagement or compensation. The panel rejected this, concluding that the public interest in understanding his suspension and dismissal “far outweigh the downside to Dr Richardson of publication.” Appleby (Jersey) LLP said their client “understands and respects that the appeal decision will sit with the Royal Court” and is unable to comment further. Health and Care Jersey confirmed awareness of the appeal but said no further comment could be given while legal proceedings continue. ## The NSFW Perspective Whatever the Royal Court ultimately decides on the procedural questions, the human reality at the heart of this case is stark: 33 families received letters telling them that a loved one’s death had been assessed as catastrophic harm. That is not a management problem or a public-relations challenge. It is a tragedy, and Jersey’s health system owes those families every transparency it can muster. The tribunal’s willingness to uphold a dismissal conducted without warning, process or appeal, while simultaneously granting permission to appeal on exactly those grounds, tells you something about the genuine legal complexity here. The Royal Court will have its work cut out. In the meantime, the absence of critical meeting notes and errors in witness statements are the kind of detail that should make any taxpayer ask whether the Health Department’s handling of this affair, from the original failures of care right through to the dismissal process, has been as rigorous as the public deserves. *Source: [Jersey Evening Post](https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2026/11/04/compelling-evidence-of-mistreatment-of-patients-against-sacked-rheumatology-doctor)*