Case 1302031/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Stacey v The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302031/2022
- Decision date
- 18 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mrs S Ray, Mr J Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs V Stacey brought complaints of protected disclosure detriment and unfair dismissal against The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust. The tribunal held that the protected disclosure detriment complaints were presented after the statutory time limit. It found that it was reasonably practicable for those complaints to have been presented in time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider them.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been dismissed. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded. No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The complaints of protected disclosure detriment were presented after expiry of the statutory time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time and therefore held it had no jurisdiction to consider them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed, so the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.