Case 1600134/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Davies v Swansea Bay University Local Health Board — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600134/2022
- Decision date
- 25 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Venue
- Port Talbot
- Panel members
- Mrs L Bishop, Mr A Fryer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Davies
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Port Talbot before Employment Judge S Jenkins sitting with Mrs L Bishop and Mr A Fryer. The claimant was Mrs J Davies and the respondent was Swansea Bay University Local Health Board. The judgment recorded that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons would follow unless requested in time.
The claimant’s detriment claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, relating to protected disclosures, was dismissed because it was not brought within the stipulated time frame. The tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within that time frame, and on that basis the claim failed on limitation grounds.
The claimant’s unfair dismissal claims under sections 94 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 also failed and were dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award, and no remedy was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 was found not to have been brought within the stipulated time frame. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time, so it was dismissed on limitation grounds. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant’s unfair dismissal claims under s.94 ERA 1996 and s.103A ERA 1996 failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.