Max McLean vs Bradford: the cost of NHS whistleblowing
Dr Max McLean. Former Chair of Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHSFT
Dr Max McLean had a distinguished Police career as a Detective Chief Superintendent investigating the most serious crimes committed in West Yorkshire. After retiring from the Police he worked as a Non-Executive Director in the NHS before becoming Chair of Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHSFT in 2019. As Chair he was tasked with holding the executive team to account on performance, safety and governance.
His whistleblowing case, which raised serious patient safety concerns about maternity and neonatal care, came to an end last week. His claim was dismissed, but it had produced a precedent‑setting legal ruling on who counts as a ‘worker’.
This is the human story about the price he paid for speaking up.
Neonatal concerns raised
In April 2021, two babies died on the Bradford Neonatal unit, and another suffered permanent disability. McLean alleged that Serious Incident investigations, usually completed in 60 days, had taken 14 months. During this time he also raised concerns about the conduct and performance of the Trust’s Chief Executive Officer. He commissioned an independent review and believed that the review supported his concerns. However the Trust board took no action.
He alleged that despite correctly raising concerns through proper channels, including NHS England and the CQC, he was effectively forced to choose between immediate resignation or dismissal in October 2023. The Trust, however, indicated that he left for “personal reasons” unrelated to whistleblowing.
The legal battle and a landmark win
McLean took the trust to an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal. Initially the Tribunal was asked to rule that, as a non‑executive chair, he could not be classed as a ‘worker’ and therefore did not have whistleblowing protection under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In March 2025 the Tribunal decided that McLean met the legal definition of a ‘worker’. This landmark judgment stated there was a contract under which he was required to perform work personally for the trust, and the trust was not acting as his client.
This ruling allowed the claim to proceed to a full hearing. It is a significant ruling because it entitles NHS trust chairs and other board members to employment protections and whistleblowing safeguards that are available for employees and workers. Senior leaders are able to challenge executives on governance and safety with legal protection. It is impossible to see how non-executive directors and chairs could undertake their scrutiny roles without such protections but the clarification is significant.
The claim is lost
A full hearing by the Employment Tribunal in Leeds in 2026 found against him, and dismissed his whistleblowing claim. The Tribunal determined that he was not a whistleblower, but if it had found that he was, it would have concluded that he had not been treated detrimentally because it.
The Trust had argued that it had robust speaking‑up processes and that McLean was not penalised for raising concerns.
After this judgement McLean announced he would not pursue further legal action, and the case is now closed.
What did Max gain?
The worker status ruling has wide ranging implications for NHS Board chairs and non‑executives across England. It strengthens the position of senior leaders who raise governance and safety concerns. They are workers with whistleblowing protection. It is now harder for NHS Boards to sideline chairs or non‑executive directors because they are not traditional employees.
This is arguably the greatest legacy of the case for anyone interested in NHS governance.
McLean’s case led to Public scrutiny of several uncomfortable topics:
Neonatal delays - are families receiving timely answers and are Trusts learning from incidents?
Board dynamics - can non‑executive chairs really hold executives to account?
Speaking‑up - does the speaking-up culture exist in the NHS, especially for senior leaders?
An advocate for change - McLean is now advocating for senior leaders to be able to challenge executive board members on matters of patient safety and governance, without fear of career damage. He warns of a ‘chilling effect’ if chairs and non‑executives feel unprotected when raising difficult matters. He has turned a personal battle into a national campaign for change.
What was the personal cost?
Chairmanship and career - He left his role as chair in October 2023. He is no longer a senior NHS board member and his tenure ended in controversy.
Financial and personal costs -
Significant legal costs which required crowdfunding to help fund the preliminary hearing
Personal costs of years of litigation, whilst continuing to advocate on patient safety. These cots are born by families, and affect reputations and future opportunities.
No Tribunal finding of victimisation or unfair dismissal. The judgment did not uphold his claim that he suffered detriment due to whistleblowing. He has always said publicly that his actions were to protect patients and uphold good governance, and although he disputes many of the tribunal’s findings and he has taken the painful decision not to appeal.
Was his whistleblowing justified?
This is the most interesting part of the story.
Evidence that supports his position
The Independent review: McLean contended that this review corroborated his concerns, and found that CEO’s actions fell short of expectations.
Investigation delays: He quoted a 14‑month investigation delay against a 60‑day standard for serious incidents involving baby deaths and severe harm, arguing this undermined learning and patient safety.
Use of proper channels: He raised concerns through formal routes, including NHS England and the CQC, rather than going straight to the media.
Many of his supporters support the view that his primary intention was to challenge leadership over safety and governance, and that this was not only justified but necessary.
The Tribunal’s view
In dismissing the whistleblowing claim the Tribunal stated that it was not satisfied that McLean suffered detriment because of protected disclosures, even though it had previously accepted his status as a worker. It also disputed some of his assertions, including the 14 month delays in maternity investigations or that his concerns were motivated solely by neonatal issues.
Why walking away makes sense
He has already secured the landmark worker status for board members. Further legal action would entail additional cost and stress and an uncertain prospect of overturning the Tribunal’s findings.
He has made a strategic shift to influence. By stepping back from litigation and focusing on policy and culture change, he may have more impact on speaking‑up protections for board members than by continuing a personal legal battle.
There has already been a significant personal toll. He has described the tribunal process as challenging to himself and his family, including having to represent himself in Court against specialist legal teams.
Why he might have continued
There are unresolved questions about accountability: If his concerns about neonatal investigations and leadership failings remain unresolved, maybe further pressure is necessary.
The signal to other potential whistleblowers: Continuing the fight could be seen as reinforcing that senior leaders will not be easily silenced, though the precedent on worker status sends a strong signal.
Final Thoughts
As a Disclaimer: I know Max and served with him as a non-executive Board Member on Bradford Districts & Craven CCG between 2016 and 2019.
For what it is worth - given the precedent already won, the personal and financial costs, and his stated aim to influence systemic reform rather than just win an individual case, his decision to walk away from further litigation is understandable. I think it is the right thing for him to do, and it is consistent with his oft stated message that the real goal is safer services and a genuine speaking‑up culture, rather than personal vindication.
Max McLean’s case is unlikely to be the last whistleblowing case in the NHS. But Max has already changed the legal landscape for board‑level speaking up, forcing difficult questions into public view. He has also shown how much one person may be asked to sacrifice in the name of accountability. The costs of continuing litigation over many years can be huge. I wrote about it in my piece about the Figueiredo family.
Whether you agree with every detail of this account or not, his story is a stark reminder: in healthcare, the price of honesty can be extraordinarily high — and the system still has a long way to go before it truly protects those who try to keep it honest.
If you work in or with the NHS, especially in leadership, governance or coaching roles, Max McLean’s case tells us that:
Speaking up at board level is still risky, even when concerns are raised through proper channels.
Legal protections are evolving, but they do not guarantee a favourable peronal outcome in every case.
Independent reviews can support whistleblowers, but they do not automatically translate into board action or legal vindication.
The personal cost of whistleblowing is real, and leaders need honest conversations about support, resilience and exit strategies.
Systemic change requires more than individual courage; it needs structures that protect those who challenge power in the name of patient safety.
It may be that in your professional life, as a clinician or a board member, you are in a poisition where you have felt the need to challenge the system, including whistleblowing. If so you will probably feel unsupported, undervalued, and probably marginalised by your colleagues.
If you are at odds with your employers, and feeling unsupported, I am able to help. As a 40+ year NHS Clinician and Board member who is working as an Executive Coach, I can help you navigate thought these difficulties. You can book a free no obligation 30 minute on-line conversation with me here. If I am not the right Coach for you, I will recommend somebody else who might be.
Please check my website and sign up to my mailing list if you want to receive more posts like this directly to your inbox.