Case 1302356/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Harvey v The Children's Society (Services) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302356/2021
- Decision date
- 10 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Harvey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with two detriment allegations under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In the first, the claimant said she was subjected to detriments because she had made a protected disclosure on 21 December. In the second, she said she suffered a detriment when it was suggested that she shared responsibility for harm caused to service users.
Both allegations were struck out because the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment does not record any liability findings on the substance of either allegation, and it does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Section 48 ERA 1996 detriment allegation based on the claimant having made a protected disclosure on 21 December; struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Section 48 ERA 1996 detriment allegation that it was suggested the claimant shared responsibility for harm caused to service users; struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.