Dr Susan Gilby, former chief executive of Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, has won her unfair dismissal case against the Trust and its chair, Ian Haythornthwaite.
The tribunal ruled that Dr Gilby was forced out of her role after whistleblowing about the “confrontational and aggressive behaviour” of Haythornthwaite to both the Trust and NHS England in 2022.
The Trust is currently under scrutiny in the Thirlwall Inquiry, which is examining its response to the actions of former nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven more. The case remains controversial, with a panel of experts recently saying that they found no evidence of any murders taking place – with all cases of death and injury due to natural causes or “just bad medical care”.
Dr Gilby, who took on the role following Letby’s arrest, focused on addressing governance and patient safety concerns within the organisation.
 |
Get our essential daily HR news and updates. |
Employment Judge Shotter spoke of a coordinated effort to remove Dr Gilby from her position. The tribunal found that Haythornthwaite, along with senior leaders, engaged in a campaign to discredit her performance, with key figures deleting documents to cover up their actions. The case involved claims of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing retaliation, and workplace bullying.
The judgment concluded that ‘Project Countess’ – a plan led by Haythornthwaite with the involvement of chief people officer Nicola Price and non-executive directors Ken Gill and Ros Fallon – was designed to fabricate criticisms of Dr Gilby’s performance. The tribunal found that senior figures tried to protect the chair while undermining the CEO’s position.
Governance Failures and Workplace Culture
The tribunal ruling revealed significant governance failures within the Trust, highlighting a culture where personal agendas took precedence over ethical leadership. Haythornthwaite, a former BBC accountant, was found to have exceeded his remit, intervening in operational matters in an “extremely and unnecessarily aggressive” manner that left staff feeling intimidated.
Dr Gilby’s legal team raised concerns about the wider implications for NHS governance and accountability. Ian Radford of arch.law, who represented Dr Gilby, criticised the Trust’s handling of the case.
“The tribunal’s findings expose a serious failure in governance at the Trust, with senior figures prioritising personal criticism over constructive leadership. The directors and governors tasked with overseeing the actions of those senior figures failed to monitor them adequately, failed to prevent serious wrongs from being committed, and later failed to take any meaningful steps to right those wrongs,” Radford said.
“It is disappointing that even now the Trust has not offered an apology to Dr Gilby for the wrongdoings committed in its name. The tribunal’s decision serves as a stark warning to NHS leadership—accountability and professionalism must be at the heart of healthcare management.”
HR’s Role in Enabling Misconduct
The tribunal also highlighted failings within HR processes, which it found had enabled unacceptable conduct to persist.
Robyn Barron, solicitor at arch.law, said, “This case underscores the importance of HR professionals acting impartially and following proper procedures to prevent unacceptable conduct from going unchecked. Unfortunately, that did not happen here, and I urge all involved in HR to read this judgment carefully.”
Dr Gilby described the ordeal as “nothing short of torture at times”, adding, “My career has been taken from me with no justification, and the financial losses we have suffered are significant. However, I was not prepared to compromise my integrity, so I put my faith in the judicial system. The destruction of evidence by trust officers to cover up wrongdoing is particularly shocking. The time for these behaviours to be acceptable within the NHS is over.”
