Case 1304264/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Marianthi Gkreka v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 1304264/2024
- Decision date
- 25 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Members
- Panel members
- Mrs W Ellis, Mr C Greatorex
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Marianthi Gkreka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the complaints of detriment for making a protected disclosure, automatic unfair dismissal, and breach of contract for failure to follow disciplinary procedures, finding that those complaints were not well-founded.
The Tribunal found the complaint of wrongful dismissal well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant 800 pounds as damages for breach of contract, less any tax and national insurance contributions. It also ordered the respondent to pay 945 pounds as a preparation time order after finding that the respondent had acted unreasonably in the way the proceedings were conducted.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaints of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint for failure to follow disciplinary procedures was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal complaint was well-founded. The judgment describes the award as damages for breach of contract, less any tax and national insurance contributions. | Upheld | — | £800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,745
- across all upheld claims
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.