GP Practice Manager Awarded £140K After Being Forced to Resign Due to Gossiping Co-Workers

Published : July 7, 2025

In Mrs Catherine Clark v Dr Kamutasa and Dr Williams (a partnership) T/a Gardden Road Surgery, a GP practice manager was awarded over £140,000 after enduring persistent bullying and harassment, much of which was linked to her mental health. Mrs Clark, who was an employee and a patient at the surgery, ultimately felt forced to resign after being labelled an “old knacker” and a “tumour” by one of the surgery’s doctors. She went on to successfully claim unfair constructive dismissal, harassment, and other successful claims, though not all were upheld.

Below, we examine what happened, the employment tribunal’s judgment, and when banter becomes bullying at work. If you have any questions about wrongful dismissal or believe your employment rights have been breached, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can answer your queries and provide expert advice on your possible next steps. To learn more about how we could help you, simply:

The Facts in Mrs Catherine Clark v Dr Kamutasa and Dr Williams (a partnership) T/a Gardden Road Surgery

Mrs Catherine Clark (“the Claimant”) worked as a practice manager for Gardden Road Surgery (“the Respondent”) in Rhosllanerchrugog, Wales. She suffered from anxiety and depression and, along with her family, was a patient in the surgery.

GP Practice Manager Faces Allegations Over Prescription Access

In August 2020, the Claimant had requested staff feedback. At such time, Nurse Smith raised concerns about staff “jumping the queue” and going to the “weaker” doctor, later revealed to be Dr Wilkinson, for medication. The Claimant suspected the concerns targeted her, especially since she’d recently seen Dr Wilkinson.

It later came to light that Nurse Smith had accessed the documents without authorisation. This was partly because she had concerns about “the misuse of appointments and inappropriate prescribing to members of staff.” This was specifically aimed at the Claimant, who’d previously taken medication to help manage her mental health conditions. In a draft correspondence written by Nurse Smith, she referred to the “drug-seeking behaviours” of certain senior staff.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the only time the GP practice manager was subjected to unpleasant remarks. During proceedings, Ms Maddox, one of the Claimant’s witnesses, described comments made about the Claimant and her family at various times throughout her employment.

On one occasion, a colleague allegedly said, “[She’s] stopped drinking now; she must be anxious again, needing more tablets,” after the Claimant was placed on the triage list. Ms Maddox explained that comments such as this contributed to an environment that was “very uncomfortable.”

Senior Staff Comments Intensify Pressure on GP Practice Manager

Animosity at work persisted, and in March 2021, Nurse Barnes informed the Claimant of correspondence she’d received from Dr Williams. This correspondence was originally sent from the Respondent’s accountant and labelled the Claimant a “clearly inept practice manager.” They added, “If I was her boss, she would’ve been given her marching orders long ago [laughing emoji]…” 

Dr Williams allegedly responded, “So everyone thinks Tracey is a c*nt, not just me.” Then, months later, Dr Williams’ ex-partner shared screenshots of her calling the Claimant an “old knacker,” a “tumour,” and referring to her family as the “Clarkashians.”

The Claimant subsequently confronted Dr Williams, who eventually admitted wrongdoing, saying the comments weren’t meant to be shared. Nonetheless, the incident understandably left the Claimant distraught and worsened her anxiety.

GP Practice Manager Meets with Surgery Partners

Over the coming months, Dr Kamutasa attempted to resolve the matter between the Claimant and Dr Williams. This was challenging for him, though, not only because he was inexperienced in dealing with HR matters but also because he and Dr Williams were the surgery’s partners. While he wanted the issue handled, he didn’t want to disrupt his professional relationship.

Despite this, on 22 February 2022, the Claimant met with the surgery partners, appearing to provide a positive outcome. On 1 March, she emailed her colleagues, informing them of her phased return to work (she had been signed off with work-related stress for large periods following the new year). Her email was unexpected and announced policy and procedure updates, stating that she hoped for “better times ahead”.

Constructive Dismissal Allegations After Financial Dispute

Unfortunately, things took another negative turn on 16 April. The Respondent queried payments of over £17,000 to CTC Ltd, which the Claimant had approved. Dr Kamutasa denied authorising them and asked for repayment.

However, the Claimant strongly refuted the allegation of wrongdoing. She pointed to a formal agreement between the Respondent and CTC Ltd from April 2021. This outlined each party’s obligations, including the services that CTC Ltd was providing and the costs associated with those services.

Nevertheless, the matter proceeded, and on 27 April, the Claimant was invited to an investigation meeting concerning allegations of misconduct. This was scheduled to take place on 6 May but didn’t go ahead. The day before the investigation was due to occur, the Claimant stated she was too unwell to attend. Instead, on 13 May, her solicitor provided a settlement offer to the Respondent and explained that the Claimant would soon file a grievance. This was lodged one month later.

Among other things, the complaints included the comments made by Nurse Smith and Doctor Williams, as well as the Respondent’s intention to remove the Claimant from her role through the disciplinary investigation process. The Claimant requested an apology, assurance of future support, and that the disciplinary process be terminated.

Grievance Rejected and Forced Resignation Looms

On 17 November, the grievance investigation report was provided to the Claimant. She learned that her grievance hadn’t been upheld and, as a consequence, the investigation into the CTC Ltd payments would proceed. The Claimant appealed the decision on 23 November, but, unfortunately, this led to “the final straw.”

When appealing the grievance decision, the Claimant was instructed to send her appeal to Mr Marriott, who was the practice manager at a neighbouring surgery. Surprisingly, however, the Respondent hadn’t checked whether Mr Marriott was qualified to handle the appeal before giving the Claimant this instruction. The appeal was, therefore, reassigned.

The Claimant, however, was upset that she’d shared confidential details with someone uninvolved. She was also concerned that she’d sent her confidential appeal to someone who hadn’t heard the case and held a similar role at a nearby practice. She felt this could damage her reputation and future employment prospects in the area.

All of this led to the Claimant handing in her resignation on 12 December. In her resignation letter, the GP practice manager elaborated on the treatment she’d endured over the previous few years, along with the handling of her grievance and appeal, which meant she felt forced to resign.

The Claimant subsequently engaged in Acas early conciliation from 12 December to 22 January 2023 before initiating employment tribunal proceedings on 26 January. She claimed ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal, breach of contract regarding notice pay, detriment for making a protected disclosure, direct disability and age discrimination, harassment related to disability and age, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, victimisation, and unpaid holiday pay.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Constructive Dismissal and Harassment Claims Upheld

The Tribunal first dealt with her ordinary unfair dismissal claim, stating that she’d been constructively dismissed. It explained that the cumulative treatment she experienced, which included persistent bullying and a failure to properly handle her grievance, amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. This, in the tribunal’s view, entitled her to resign, amounting to constructive dismissal, and giving rise to her claim.

About the Claimant’s harassment and unfavourable treatment claims, these centred on comments made by the Respondent’s accountant and Dr Williams. Harassment, in this context, involves unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that either violates a person’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. Unfavourable treatment, on the other hand, occurs when someone is treated less well because of a protected characteristic.

In this case, the relevant protected characteristics were the Claimant’s age and, more prominently, her disability (specifically, her mental health). The tribunal found that remarks such as referring to her as an “old knacker” clearly related to those characteristics. The language used was not only inappropriate but also unwanted, and it contributed to a hostile working environment. As a result, the tribunal upheld both the harassment and unfavourable treatment claims.

GP Practice Manager Awarded £140k Following Successful Ruling

Next came the claim for victimisation. Under UK law, this arises when someone is treated less favourably because they’ve raised a complaint about discrimination or harassment, which is known as a “protected act.”

In the Claimant’s case, the protected acts were her complaints about Dr Williams’ comments (which the tribunal later found to amount to harassment) and the formal grievance she raised. The tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s failure to properly address those complaints, particularly its decision not to take meaningful action against Dr Williams or uphold parts of the grievance (despite having enough evidence to do so), amounted to victimisation.

Finally, the tribunal held that the Claimant was entitled to unpaid holiday pay and that the Respondent had breached her contract by failing to pay her notice period. All remaining claims were dismissed. Following the above judgment, the Claimant was then awarded a total of £142,803.39. 

When Does Banter Become Bullying?

Banter, when light-hearted and mutual, can contribute to positive workplace relationships and a supportive team environment. However, like in the case involving the GP practice manager, it can easily cross the line into bullying. It’s, therefore, essential to know when to stop.

Banter becomes bullying when it causes harm, is repeated, or targets someone personally or maliciously, regardless of intent. UK law emphasises the importance of how the behaviour is received, not just how it was meant. Even if a remark was intended as a joke, if it offends, humiliates, or isolates someone, especially based on protected characteristics, it may be classified as harassment or bullying.

Key indicators that banter has crossed the line include that the:

  • Individual on the receiving end feels offended, targeted, or demeaned.
  • Comments involve personal insults, persistent criticism, or inappropriate topics, such as identity, religion, or gender.
  • Behaviour is repeated or continues after someone has expressed discomfort.
  • Interaction creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive environment.

This distinction is particularly important in light of the proposed Clause 20 in the Employment Rights Bill, which would legally require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, including from third parties. While not yet enacted at the time of writing, the clause highlights that even overheard “banter” not directed at an employee can be grounds for complaint if it contributes to an offensive atmosphere.

To prevent banter from becoming bullying, it’s vital to foster a workplace culture built on respect, empathy, and open communication. Employers should provide clear guidance through anti-harassment policies and training and ensure there are safe, accessible mechanisms for reporting concerns.

Get Help with Redmans

If you’ve experienced bullying at work or been the victim of a forced resignation, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law experts, we can analyse your circumstances, answer your queries, and provide specialist advice. All you have to do to get started is:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.