SEVEN months after a doctor was sacked, a tribunal into the alleged “brutal retaliatory victimisation” he suffered for whistleblowing concerns on midwifery care has concluded.

Consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Martyn Pitman was dismissed earlier this year from the Royal Hampshire County Hospital (RHCH) in Winchester where he had worked in his role for 20 years.

The consultant, from South Wonston, has denied all allegations of bullying and harassment that sparked an investigation in 2019.

At an employment tribunal, at Southampton Magistrates Court, Mr Pitman, 57, claimed that he suffered a detriment due to exercising rights under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

READ MORE: Martyn Pitman faces NHS trust managers who fired him from hospital

Two weeks after the hearing began, the tribunal heard closing submissions from both Hampshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Mr Pitman’s representatives on Monday, October 9.

The trust’s lawyer, Mark Sutton KC, said: "At the core of his case is an investigation into his conduct towards colleagues of the maternity department.

"What has been characterised as his communication style was received by some of his colleagues as bullying and harassment. It became so damaging that they requested an investigation, conducted by Dr Lucy Sykes.

"It was coordinated in accordance with Maintaining High Professional Standards (MHPS) and was a thorough and balanced investigation.

"While not intended, his prevailing style of communication had a significant impact on people's wellbeing.

"It became clear that the claimant's (Martyn Pitman) style of communication was long-standing.

"Efforts were made to correct it and there were a number of attempts to counsel the claimant about his behaviour."

SEE ALSO: Hospital trust boss says she didn’t think doctor was whistleblowing

Mr Pitman's first disclosure was in a meeting in 2019 with Janice MacKenzie, director of midwifery at the time.

The tribunal heard that Ms Mackenzie felt “scared and panicked”.

Mr Sutton questioned whether the obstetrician had raised concerns at this stage, with Ms MacKenzie describing the meeting as a “personalised attack on her and her decisions.”

Mr Sutton said that Mr Pitman's alleged disclosure to Ms MacKenzie could not be "regarded as a dependable account.

He said: "There seems to be depleted source material that has not been shown to us but there is evidence which confirms Janice MacKenzie's account that it was a 'personalised attack' on her and her decisions.

"Mr Pitman's accounts all provide materially different versions of some events."

READ ALSO: Fired doctor reduced to tears while denying 'fabricated' bullying allegations

Mr Pitman’s lawyer Jack Mitchell, continued to back the view that the process was orchestrated to get him fired.

Mr Mitchell said: "When the mediation failed, no other steps were put in place to help the claimant with his communication and the mediation process aggravated the claimant's injury.

Mr Mitchell defended Mr Pitman's use of the term "smoke screen". He said that it was in line with a whistleblower who felt the investigation was to "cover up the issues he had raised with Janice MacKenzie."

Throughout the hearing Mr Pitman has compared his case to Amin Abdullah, a nurse who set himself on fire after being unfairly treated and dismissed from his job.

Mr Sutton said: "It's an absolute travesty to suggest that the claimant's experience bears any resemblance at all to Abdullah's.

"The fact that he was willing to maintain that is particularly worrying."

Mr Mitchell said: "In simple terms, the claimant went through a process that lasted longer than it was supposed to. He was taken through a process that denied and avoided dealing with what he thought had precipitated the investigation.

"They ignored his plea that there was a link between the complaint and his disclosure to Janice MacKenzie."

The tribunal panel, led by employment judge Jonathan Gray, has started deliberating. Judge Gray said they should have a decision within 28 days.

A separate claim of unfair dismissal has been issued for determination at a later stage.