The Legal Aid Agency is facing renewed pressure over board accountability after lawyers for Dr Susan Gilby called for the removal of Ken Gill, a non-executive board member, following findings made in her whistleblowing claim against Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
The call follows the Employment Tribunal judgment in Dr Susan Gilby v Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, handed down in February 2025, and the £1.4m settlement announced in January 2026.
Dr Gilby, the former chief executive of the trust, brought claims for unfair constructive dismissal and whistleblowing detriment after raising concerns about bullying, governance and patient safety.
The tribunal sat in Liverpool before Employment Judge Shotter, Ms M Plimley and Mr J Murdie.
Solicitor Ian Radford, a senior consultant at arch.law, has led the renewed challenge to Mr Gill’s position at the Legal Aid Agency. Mr Gill joined the LAA in 2023 and is listed by GOV.UK as a non-executive board member and chair of the agency’s Audit and Risk Committee.
The committee supports the LAA board and chief executive on internal and external audit, corporate governance, anti-fraud policy, internal control, risk management and annual accounts.
The issue for the LAA is not the underlying employment dispute alone, but the governance consequence of a tribunal record involving a board member who now holds a public oversight role. The tribunal case concerned conduct at Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, where Mr Gill was deputy chairman and Dr Gilby was chief executive until December 2022.
Ian Haythornthwaite, Nicola Price and Ros Fallon were also named in the account of the internal process that led to Dr Gilby’s suspension and resignation.
The Legal Aid Agency has not removed Mr Gill. GOV.UK continues to list him as a non-executive board member and chair of the agency’s Audit and Risk Committee, whose remit covers audit, corporate governance, anti-fraud policy, internal control, risk management and annual accounts.
That position keeps the case alive as a legal-sector governance issue because the LAA is a public body whose board members are expected to meet standards of honesty, integrity and accountability.
Employment lawyers advising NHS bodies, regulators and public agencies should treat the Gilby case as a warning about whistleblowing governance, disclosure control and post-judgment accountability.
Findings in an Employment Tribunal can extend beyond compensation and reputational damage where a criticised individual later holds an audit, risk or public oversight role. In-house counsel should review how protected disclosures, suspension decisions, document retention and board-level conflicts are recorded before disciplinary action is taken.
The unresolved question for the Legal Aid Agency is whether Ken Gill’s continuing board role can withstand professional and public scrutiny after the Employment Tribunal’s findings in Dr Gilby’s case.