Case 1310247/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Moseley v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 1310247/2020
- Decision date
- 4 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Panel members
- Mrs R Forrest, Mr T Liburd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Moseley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely before Employment Judge Faulkner with lay members Mrs R Forrest and Mr T Liburd. It rejected the claimant’s complaint that she had been subjected to a detriment on the ground that she had made a protected disclosure, finding that complaint not well-founded and dismissing it.
On dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent did not dismiss the claimant because, or principally because, she had made a protected disclosure. It nevertheless concluded that the dismissal was unfair, so the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract, and that complaint was well-founded.
The judgment records that remedy for unfair dismissal and breach of contract was left to be considered on a later date to be determined. No monetary award is stated in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint that the claimant was subjected to a detriment on the ground that she had made a protected disclosure. The tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent did not dismiss the claimant because or principally because she made a protected disclosure, but held that she was nevertheless unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and held that complaint to be well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
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.