Midwife’s claim against NHS trust over Prevent referral linked to pro-Palestinian beliefs can proceed, Employment Tribunal rules

This follows a complaint made by lobbying group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) about Fatimah Mohamied’s social media activity.

The ruling may have wider implications for employees and former employees seeking to challenge referrals made by their employers to safeguarding or counter-terrorism programmes, where they believe those referrals were discriminatory.

Fatimah brought claims against her former employer after it referred her to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and the counter-terrorism safeguarding programme Prevent in March 2025, following a complaint about her online posts expressing support for Palestinian rights.

Fatimah, a practising Muslim of Egyptian and Bengali heritage, worked for CWFT from June 2019 to until her resignation in March 2024. From July 2023 until her resignation, she also held the role of Cultural Safety Lead Midwife.

CWFT referred Fatimah to the NMC on 20 March 2025, raising concerns about her online activity and conduct. On 25 March 2025, it made a separate referral to Prevent, using a form intended for concerns that an individual may be susceptible to radicalisation.

Fatimah has subsequently brought claims alleging that the referrals were discriminatory and amounted to harassment related to her protected beliefs, including her pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist beliefs and expression, and race.

Fatimah argues that the UKLFI letter contained discriminatory content including Islamophobic tropes and racist stereotypes applied to Muslims/People of Colour and was acted on by CWFT, when it should have been treated with caution.

CWFT argued that both referrals were protected by judicial proceedings immunity, a legal principle which can prevent legal action being brought in relation to certain statements or actions connected with legal or quasi-legal proceedings.

At a preliminary hearing on 3 September 2026 at the London Central Employment Tribunal, Judge Timothy Clive Adkin considered whether the referrals were protected by this immunity and whether Fatimah could pursue her claims in relation to them. In a reserved judgment sent to the parties on 12 October 2026, the tribunal ruled that the Prevent referral was not protected by judicial proceedings immunity and that Fatimah’s claim in relation to it can proceed to a full hearing.

However, the Tribunal found that the NMC referral was protected by the immunity. It held that, for public policy reasons, employers and NHS trusts should be able to raise concerns with professional regulators without being deterred by the threat of litigation. The tribunal therefore concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the part of Fatimah’s claim relating to the NMC referral.

The ruling means that Fatimah can continue her claim in relation to the Prevent referral, for the Tribunal to determine whether the referral was discriminatory or amounted to harassment. The case is expected to proceed to a final hearing before a full tribunal panel in 2028.

Fatimah is represented by Liana Wood, partner and employment solicitor at law firm Leigh Day.

Fatimah said:

“I am pleased Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust will continue to be held accountable for referring me to Prevent. NHS Trusts must learn that advocating against genocide, occupation, ethnic cleansing and apartheid is central to a healthcare worker's role.

“My case is a prime example of Prevent referrals being weaponised against Muslims and people of colour to destabilise their careers and families, as punishment for their Palestinian advocacy and criticism of Zionism.

“NHS staff should be safeguarded from what I believe are silencing tactics of UKLFI, to speak freely on the ongoing genocide and destruction of life, health, and dignity in Palestine.”

Liana said:

“We welcome the Tribunal’s confirmation that that an employer cannot automatically rely on privilege or judicial proceedings immunity as a litigation shield where a decision to refer an employee or in this case ex-employee to Prevent is alleged to be discriminatory. Our client’s case will proceed to a final hearing, and our client will make her case that she was subject to discrimination and harassment by CWFT.”