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 namedClaimant
Dr M Weaver
Key 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 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claims under s.47B ERA 1996 dismissed: tribunal found no causal link between protected disclosures and the alleged detrimental treatment. PDF truncated from 488,261 to 15,000 chars - findings summary based on visible text only. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination and race-related harassment under ss.13 and 26 EqA 2010 dismissed; some allegations dismissed on withdrawal during the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination and age-related harassment dismissed; some allegations dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment under s.26 EqA 2010 dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Age-related harassment under s.26 EqA 2010 dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under s.27 EqA 2010 dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.