Case 1600478/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. D. Moodley v Mental Health Care UK Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600478/2016
- Decision date
- 17 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. D. Moodley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Mold on 15 August 2019, before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan, the tribunal recorded that Mr D. Moodley's s.98 ERA 1996 unfair dismissal claim and his s.103A ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal claim were dismissed because he withdrew them. No substantive findings on the merits of those dismissal claims were given in the written record.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's breach of contract claim on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. In addition, the claimant's application to join Edward Lupen Healthcare Ltd as a second claimant failed. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days; no such request was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's s.98 ERA 1996 unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon his withdrawal of it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's s.103A ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon his withdrawal of it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was dismissed because the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 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.