A case of collusion thanks to a slip of the tongue

Collusion is a frequent issue in investigation and Tribunal cases. This is a case shared during the December 2025 report Investigating the Investigators.

It arises from the case of Slade vs Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust County Court case J10YX623.

Jonny Slade is a facilities worker who was sued for “fundamental dishonesty” by Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust after he withdrew a claim for personal injury against the Trust after he broke two toes in an obstructed gangway. He withdrew his case after his solicitor advised him to pull out.

The Court transcript records Mr Slade giving evidence that his then solicitor failed to tell him that doing so could open him up to a claim for costs from the Trust as the case could still be continued by the employer. And indeed, he was then sued for “fundamental dishonesty” by the Trust claiming costs from him. He told the Court:

I couldn’t afford to pay for a solicitor and I feel like I have been abandoned and I have had a pretty shoddy service from somebody who just wanted a simple win and didn’t want to have to do the work I have had to do. (Page 2 line17)

So Mr Slade, as a litigant in person, faced a bill of some £14000 (Page 3 Line 14). The Trust barrister sought to establish that:

• Mr Slade’s account of the accident had exaggerated its impact on him

• The accident had not occurred where he said it had

• It had not occurred how it had happened

• It did not happen because the gangway was obstructed as he claimed

• He had delayed reporting the accident

• Mr Slade had been the subject of a number of complaints which reflected on his character

The burden of proof rested on the Trust. It failed to establish any of these points.

Crucially, the Trust failed to establish that the gangway could not have been obstructed in the way Mr Slade described. To support this allegation, the Trust provided a series of photos which, far from proving their case, turned out to be their downfall because Mr Slade was able to convincingly show that the Trust’s own photographic evidence showed up to ten significant breaches of health and safety legislation. He also showed that the delay in completing the accident form was down to the manager who failed to check CCTV footage. Equally embarrassing, the manager had not submitted the RIDDOR which must be sent to the Health and Safety Executive since the safety failure led to a significant period of work-related absence. Indeed, she had never heard of RIDDOR.

This car crash of a case then prompted the judge to ask the main Trust witness questions to which the answers were so damning that they led to the Trust abandoning its case immediately afterwards. The Court transcript reads as follows:

JUDGE HAWORTH: In paragraph two, you say that this statement has been prepared following Microsoft Teams meetings with Weightmans LLP; is that right?

A (main Trust witness) I don’t know what Weightmans LLP is.

JUDGE HAWORTH: I think those are the instructing solicitors of Mr Morris here. So, they are your solicitors, in other words.

A.   Oh, yes, then, it is true, then.

JUDGE HAWORTH: So, you, obviously, had some Teams meetings?

A.   Yes.

JUDGE HAWORTH: And were those Teams meetings just a one-to-one?

A.   They were in a group.

JUDGE HAWORTH: So, the Teams meetings were they with all the witnesses?

A.   With my colleagues, yes. 

JUDGE HAWORTH: At the same time?

A.   Yes. 

JUDGE HAWORTH: Okay. Were there more than one meeting? 

A.   Sorry, I didn’t hear you.

JUDGE HAWORTH: Were there more than one meeting?

A.   Yes.

JUDGE HAWORTH: Do not look at them.

A.   Sorry, yes. 

JUDGE HAWORTH: If there is any of the witnesses nodding their heads, I do not want a nodding of head. 

A.   Yes, two maybe three. 

JUDGE HAWORTH: And you are all there discussing the case? 

A.   Yes.

JUDGE HAWORTH: At the same time? 

A.   Yes.

JUDGE HAWORTH: And the witness statements were formulated on that basis?

A.   Yes. 

Not long after this the Trust barrister suggested an adjournment. The Court transcript records that when the Court returns, the Trust barrister continues as follows:

BARRISTER: My instructions are to withdraw the application for a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

JUDGE HAWORTH: All right. Mr Slade, the application has been withdrawn; what is the position with regard to any costs that you have? 

MR SLADE: I don’t take myself too seriously, so I don’t know if there’s any costs to be honest. So, I am just... I don’t know – I don’t understand the question fully to be fair, I have 

JUDGE HAWORTH: Well, the application was a serious application that has been made against you. It was an application that, effectively, effected your credibility and it was being said that you were not just being dishonest, but you were being fundamentally dishonest and there are not many more serious allegations than that. I do not know if you spent any time in preparing for today; it is quite obvious, from your cross-examination of the only witness that we have heard, that you have clearly spent some considerable time in going through the way in which health and safety works. You, also, may have had costs of getting to and from court, either today or on previous occasions, and, in those circumstances, you would be entitled to have those costs reimbursed. 

MR SLADE: In relation to travelling today, I am – the only thing that I wanted out of this – I am not a dishonest person, so that is why I took the risk because there is no way I wanted to agree to anything to say I was dishonest, when I am not a dishonest person. The cost of getting into court, to me, are irrelevant; I have been working on since – from the fact – the fundamental dishonesty accusation. I have been working on this since I found out, two days before Christmas Eve, and I have been preparing ever since. The only cost to me is the stress and no real financial cost; it has done great for my waistline because I have lost a stone in weight with stress but, other than that, it was never about the money.

JUDGE HAWORTH: All right. Well, okay, I have asked you and you have said that you do not intend to make a claim for costs, then, in those circumstances? 

The Judge then concluded the case follows in words that should have deeply embarrassed the Trust – and Weightmans Solicitors – and which other NHS employers might usefully pay attention to.

JUDGE HAWORTH: It is a serious allegation; it must have become apparent, during the morning, clearly on the cross-examination from Mr Slade on your own witness’ evidence, in the form of photographs, that this was a case that cried out for expert evidence. There was no expert evidence here; there were a series of photographs that, frankly, took the matter no further. 

I have got to say, and I will say this as a taxpayer, this is not the best way to spend taxpayers’ money in relation to bringing allegations of fundamental dishonesty against their own employees. Quite frankly, and I will say this in open court, you would be better off spending their money in putting right a number of the health and safety issues that, quite rightly, were brought to the attention of the Court, on your own evidence, by the claimant. 

BARRISTER FOR THE TRUST: Judge, I take on board

JUDGE HAWORTH: Take that on board and take it back to those who instruct you and to the health authority for which we all pay good money, effectively, for a service and it is no service, it seems to me, to anybody to prosecute their own employees for fundamental dishonesty in relation to a matter where there was no expert evidence, in the first place, and it was simply going to be Mr Slade’s word against the word of your witnesses. I say that in open court for everybody to hear.

Weightmans

Weightmans – a high-profile legal firm with many NHS clients – organised a meeting which the Judge discovered had apparently planned how witnesses would give evidence, a pretty serious offence. Without a slip of the tongue from their star witness, no one other than Weightmans and their witnesses (and any HR or other relevant employees of the Trust) would have known of this collusion.

Weightmans LLP were, of course, the solicitors involved in the Countess of Chester NHSFT claim by the former CEO Dr Susan Gilby for unfair dismissal and whistleblower victimisation, who was faced with what the Tribunal chair described as “behind the scenes machinations” “using any allegation, no matter how unmeritorious, to build up a sham case against the claimant” (para 216) [https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/dr-susan-gilby-v-countess-of-chester-hospital-nhs-foundation-trust/ .

I am certainly not, of course, suggesting Weightmans were involved in that conspiracy but they and other lawyers might in future be well advised to avoid any involvement in the sort of collusion that was discovered in Mr Slade’s case and has happened in other NHS cases which I have discussed such as the case of Mr F Villani va 1. York & Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 2. York Teaching Hospitals Facilities Management LLP). https://www.rogerkline.co.uk/post/slapstick-nhs-victimisation-plot-exposed-by-employment-tribunal

Finally, every NHS employee with integrity should thank Jonny Slade and his unpaid adviser Jonno Grizedale, shop steward from Unite NW46 LTHTR branch, for their courage and skill in successfully challenging the taxpayer-funded bullying by the Trust.

Postscript 1.

The day after the trial, in front of a witness, a very senior manager tried to force Mr Slade to redeploy to a PPE warehouse that was due to close down.  Mr Slade says “It was claimed that no one wanted to work with me, but they were totally unaware that most of my colleagues (apart from the witnesses) had already tracked me down and congratulated me on the win”

Postscript 2.

Does anyone know if there were any consequences or learning for anyone at the Trust or at Weightmans LLP for the collusion that occurred?  When the collusion was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, no action was taken on the grounds that although recorded in the transcript it was not mentioned in the judge’s summing up.