Royal West Sussex NHS Trust v Bhattacharyya - Minor error by tribunal did not render its overall conclusion incorrect in law  EAT
Although the EAT disagreed with one small element of an employment tribunal's reasoning, that difference of view was insufficient to tip the balance so as to result in a ruling that the tribunal's ultimate conclusion was not correct.
Dr Bhattacharyya brought numerous claims in an employment tribunal of unfair dismissal, whistle-blowing, discrimination and victimisation, which the NHS Trust applied to have struck out.
Its application was based upon Dr Bhattacharyya's actions in connection with its attempts to obtain a medical report on him. First he refused to attend, then problems arose during a consultation about what matters he would discuss, then trust between him and the consultant examining him (a Dr Gill) was damaged due to some form of misunderstanding: he then missed a further appointment due to transport problems. The Employment Tribunal categorised his behaviour in the first instance as unreasonable but declined to do so in the other situations - although since it was clear that, had Dr Bhattacharyya attended the last meeting it would have been unproductive, it categorised that hypothetical conduct as unreasonable. Dr Bhattacharyya, however, had then complained to the General Medical Council about Dr Gill, alleging (among things) dishonesty.