Saleswoman Faces Jail for Faking Cancer Note and Lying About TfL CCTV in Employment Claims
Woman Admits Faking Cancer Note and Lying About TfL CCTV

Saleswoman Admits Fabricating Cancer Treatment Note and False TfL CCTV Claims in Employment Tribunal Cases

A saleswoman is confronting the possibility of imprisonment after confessing to forging a doctor's note regarding cancer treatment and making dishonest assertions about Transport for London CCTV footage in two unsuccessful employment tribunal claims against her previous employers.

Louise Gallagher, aged 50, entered guilty pleas to three counts of perverting the course of justice at Wood Green Crown Court in London on Tuesday afternoon. She is scheduled for sentencing on May 19, with additional charges related to disputed sexual assault allegations set to remain on file.

Deceptive Claims Against Distribution Giant Bunzl

Gallagher initiated a sex discrimination lawsuit against distribution behemoth Bunzl after departing the company in 2018. During the tribunal proceedings in 2020 and 2021, she asserted that Transport for London possessed CCTV evidence supporting her sexual assault allegation.

When TfL refuted providing any such information and clarified that any potential footage would have been erased, Gallagher's case began to unravel. In a desperate maneuver, she presented a handwritten doctor's note requesting a two-year adjournment, claiming she required extensive treatment for breast cancer that had metastasized to other body regions.

The fabricated medical document stated: "The claimant is very sick with breast cancer which has spread to other parts of the body so needs years of treatments and some of the tumours can't be operated on until the treatments shrink them. Her health must come first and she is currently fighting for her life."

Medical Professional Denies Authenticity

When tribunal officials questioned the note's legitimacy, the referenced cancer care consultant emphatically denied authorship, remarking: "I know my handwriting is bad – but not that bad!" Employment Judge Rebecca Eeley subsequently dismissed Gallagher's claim, ordering her to pay £8,000 in legal costs to Bunzl.

Judge Eeley determined Gallagher possessed "a propensity to lie" to secure advantage and had "knowingly misled" the tribunal regarding TfL evidence with a "forged or doctored document." She explicitly noted that "the medical certificate is clearly an untruth."

Additional Fabrications Against Health Product Supplier Essity

Following her departure from health product supplier Essity in 2023, Gallagher launched an unfair dismissal claim featuring similar sexual harassment allegations. During these proceedings in 2022 and 2023, she admitted to "manufacturing" emails purportedly from the Metropolitan Police to bolster her assertion that an eyewitness existed to a sexual assault during her Essity employment.

When challenged about these fabricated communications, Gallagher responded with "vague" and "evasive" explanations, according to Judge Paul Daniels. The Metropolitan Police confirmed their investigation into Gallagher's complaint had yielded no results and that the supporting witness evidence had been completely fabricated.

Judicial Findings and Legal Consequences

Judge Daniels concluded that Gallagher had "repeatedly provided false evidence during the course of these employment tribunal proceedings" and had "directly deployed and tried to rely on such dishonest evidence in letters to the tribunal and in her claim." While acknowledging Gallagher received legitimate breast cancer treatment between November 2020 and January 2021, the judge dismissed all her claims against Essity.

Perverting the course of justice charges frequently result in custodial sentences and carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Gallagher, residing in Marlborough, Wiltshire, initially pleaded not guilty to these charges in October 2024 but changed her plea to guilty this week.

Released on bail following her guilty pleas, Gallagher will undergo psychiatric assessment before her May sentencing hearing. The case highlights the severe consequences of attempting to deceive employment tribunals through fabricated evidence and false medical claims.