Case 1307891/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Weaver v Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 1307891/2023
- Decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Ms S Campbell, Mr K Palmer
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Flood, sitting with members Ms S Campbell and Mr K Palmer, heard this complex matter at Birmingham over 2-27 June 2025 with submissions received on 20 August 2025 and deliberations in chambers in September 2025. The claimant Dr M Weaver was represented by Ms Brooks (lay advocate) and the respondent (Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust) by Mr Sutton KC of counsel.
A number of complaints (paragraphs 2.2.6, 2.2.27, 3.2.6, 4.1.4 and 5.6.5 of the agreed list of issues) were dismissed upon withdrawal, including alternative complaints of direct race/age discrimination and race/age related harassment.
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal was that the remaining complaints of unlawful detriment on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure (s.47B ERA 1996), direct race discrimination, direct age discrimination, race-related harassment, age-related harassment and victimisation (ss.13, 26 and 27 EqA 2010) were not well-founded and were dismissed. In particular, the Tribunal found no causal link between the protected disclosures relied upon and the alleged detrimental treatment, and accepted the respondent's explanations for the various decisions complained of (including the appointment of investigators, commencement of MHPS investigation following NHSE involvement, and the terms of reference set). The PDF text was truncated from 488,261 to 15,000 chars; the detailed reasoning is not fully visible.
Claims and outcomes
6 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.