Case 1404988/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Mary Smith v Acorn Care and Education Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404988/2023
- Decision date
- 7 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Scott Tribunal
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Greenland, Tribunal Member Hallam
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Mary Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Mary Smith, made a series of protected disclosures between June 2022 and January 2023. The tribunal considered claims framed as automatically unfair dismissal and detriment arising from whistleblowing, together with an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal held that the claim of automatically unfair dismissal was not well founded and did not succeed. It reached the same conclusion on the whistleblowing detriment claim and on the unfair dismissal claim, finding each of them not well founded. No monetary remedy was recorded for those claims.
The claimant's holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not record any award of compensation, basic award, interest, or other monetary sum.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal claim; the tribunal said it was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriment as a result of whistleblowing; the tribunal said it was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim; the tribunal said it was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that this claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.