Case 1307902/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Nicole Healey v GP Homecare Limited t/a Radis Community Care PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1307902/2023
- Decision date
- 5 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Nicole Healey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 5 September 2024 before Employment Judge Camp, the tribunal recorded that Mrs Nicole Healey’s case consisted entirely of complaints that she was subjected to detriments by GP Homecare Limited t/a Radis Community Care because she made a protected disclosure. The tribunal held that none of the complaints had been presented within the section 48(3)(a) ERA 1996 time limit.
The tribunal found an exception only for the complaint that the respondent provided information to and reported the claimant to the police in or around late March 2023. For that complaint, it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, and it was presented within a further reasonable period under section 48(3)(b), so the tribunal had jurisdiction and the complaint continues.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the same exception applied to any of the other detriment complaints. Those complaints were therefore outside jurisdiction and were dismissed. The written record notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing, and written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint that the Respondent provided information to and reported the Claimant to the police in or around late March 2023. The tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable to present that complaint within the section 48(3)(a) ERA 1996 time limit, that it was presented within a further reasonable period under section 48(3)(b), and that the tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to consider it and it continues. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | All other detriment complaints were not shown to fall within the reasonable practicability exception to the section 48(3)(a) ERA 1996 time limit, so the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider them and dismissed them. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.48(3)(a) ERA 1996
- s.48(3)(b) ERA 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.