In the case of Mr M v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust a hospital receptionist who was allegedly assaulted by a security guard after their playful banter escalated has been awarded more than £19,000 in compensation from a South London NHS trust.
During an employment tribunal, Mr. M recounted fearing for his life when the security guard grabbed him by the throat and slammed his head against a wall in July 2021. While the tribunal dismissed his claims of constructive and wrongful dismissal, it ruled in his favour on the grounds that his suspension—imposed despite acting in self-defence—was unfair.
The incident began with an exchange of insults, with the security guard calling Mr. M “fat” and Mr. M retaliating by calling him “bald.” However, the situation took a violent turn when Mr. M reportedly made a comment along the lines of, “Don’t get your mother’s knickers in a twist.” At that point, the security guard allegedly “flipped,” placing his hands around Mr. M’s throat and nearly strangling him. In response, Mr. M briefly put the guard in a headlock and threw punches before other security staff intervened to break up the fight.
The security guard, employed by contractor CIS Security, was subsequently dismissed. Meanwhile, Mr. M was suspended by the Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and following a disciplinary hearing in November 2021, received a first written warning for misconduct.
In its decision, the trust stated that Mr. M ‘s actions were “not commensurate with trust values, i.e., respect and dignity to colleagues in the workplace.” Nine days later, he resigned, citing the fear he endured during the attack and his frustration at being penalized for defending himself. In his resignation letter, he expressed disappointment that the trust had failed to recognize him as a victim of a violent incident.
Employment Judge Amanda Hart ruled that the trust had “failed to take into account that Mr. M was acting in self-defence” when it decided to suspend him. She determined that his suspension was “materially influenced” by actions he took in a dangerous situation and that he suffered a detriment as a result.
The judge also criticized the lack of support provided to Mr. M during his suspension, describing it as “wholly inadequate” and a “serious breach of duty of care.” She noted that he was clearly struggling and had not received the assistance he needed during that period.
At a separate hearing in October 2024, Mr. M was awarded over £4,300 for lost earnings during his 18-week suspension, along with £15,000 in compensation for emotional distress.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
