Daily News

View All News

UK – Kate Bleasdale back in court for bankruptcy petition

24 September 2014

Former Healthcare Locums (HCL) Executive Vice-Chairman and CEO Kate Bleasdale was back in court yesterday for her long-running employment dispute against her former business partner Debbie Forster, reports The Telegraph.

The pair have been locked in litigation for five years, over a company called Stayput Solutions that Ms Forster founded and Ms Bleasdale controlled, after investing a six-figure sum. Ms Forster claims she was ousted after Ms Bleasdale took control, and has filed a £4.1 million bankruptcy petition against Ms Bleasdale and her husband, John Cariss.

The District Judge Gold, however, adjourned the final reckoning in Kingston, south west London, at the request of Ms Bleasdale’s legal counsel. It is understood that Ms Bleasdale, who has already filed two countersuits against Ms Forster, has produced yet further claims.

Ms Bleasdale declined to comment on the legal dispute, although she was keen to stress that she is “not bankrupt”.

Kate Bleasdale has been a frequent visitor to court over the past few years. In March 2011, following an investigation into alleged accounting irregularities at HCL, Kate Bleasdale was dismissed. In July 2011, Ms Bleasdale sued HCL for unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination. She also claimed that she was sacked for being a whistle-blower for uncovering the accounting irregularities, of which she claimed no involvement.

HCL defended the claims on the basis that Ms Bleasdale was fully aware of, and condoned, the financial irregularities for significant periods of time prior to her purported whistle-blowing. HCL argued that she had not acted in good faith but that she had instead condoned or encouraged falsifications to the management accounts and was therefore guilty of gross misconduct. The Employment Tribunal upheld the fairness of HCL's actions and rejected all of Ms Bleasdale's heads of claim.

Between May 2012 to February 2014, Ms Bleasdale lodged various applications and appeals both to have the decision reviewed by the Employment Tribunal and appealed to the EAT. Among other things, she argued that the law had been applied incorrectly and that the decision of the Employment Tribunal was ‘perverse’. None of her appeals were successful.

In April 2014, HCL announced that it had been successful in defending Ms Bleasdale’s appeal against the 2012 judgement of the Central London Employment Tribunal that she had been fairly dismissed.