I've been looking at the judgement specifically about that, and it looks like the allegations were not believed...but DrU believed them, or something.
In some places the judgement emphasises SP's unblemished professional record -
74 The claimant had an unblemished disciplinary record with the first respondent throughout the period of her employment, with no complaints against her by other staff until after the incident on 24 December 2023 referred to below. No complaints have been made by any patient treated by the claimant. The claimant has treated a number of patients who identify as trans men or women.
636 There is we conclude nothing in the allegation of some form of prior criticism of the claimant’s performance at work in relation to a colleague who was a more junior nurse – the evidence we did not consider came near to establishing any form of fault by the claimant over that. The evidence was of an unblemished thirty-year career until the Christmas Eve incident, and of there being no patient complaints of any kind.
As far as I remember, the patient safety allegations contributed significantly to the suspension - open to correction on that - but eventually
247 There was no written record of any complaint against the claimant by a patient or member of staff. Ms Myles considered that there was no sufficient reason for the claimant to remain on suspension.
The judge dismisses the allegation of endangering patient safety, and even says that DrU did not say that the patients were put in danger, he just brought the incidents up... I dunno, to add colour to his general ill-will towards SP, or something...
The judge makes clear that he does not believe that SP put patients in danger.
and that there were
' no complaints against her by other staff until after the incident on 24 December 2023'
but he fails to take it a step further: if DrU had not made these unfounded allegations against SP, her professional career would not have been put in question and [I think, open to correction, but I think it was these incidents that 'justified' suspension] she would not have been suspended, and wouldn't have been put through what she has endured.
A nurse has an unblemished 30 year career - she has a confrontation with DrU - he makes unfounded allegations - all hell breaks loose for her.
But he is a credible and reliable witness..
654. Whilst there had been some general references in written notes made by the second respondent to earlier incidents, and to an escalation, it was not clear exactly what that escalation was intended to refer to. The claimant agreed that on two occasions she had remained outside the changing room when the second respondent was present, but denied that she had acted as alleged on 26 August or between October and 18 December 2023 in a manner that adversely affected patient safety. In all the circumstances, particularly as if it were true that the claimant had left a position that might be detrimental to a patient that could affect patient safety, where no allegation formally was made at that time, and as the second respondent’s phone note as to the missing patient incident stated in terms that it was not a matter of patient safety, we concluded that it is not likely that either matter happened in any manner that affected patient safety. No findings in fact on the matters in relation to any adverse impact on patient safety are made accordingly.
[my emphasis]