Case 1600619/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Manley (Counsel) FOR THE v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600619/2017
- Decision date
- 23 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Date
- Panel members
- Mrs J Kiely, Mr M Pearson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Manley (Counsel) FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr A Davies worked as a dentist at Crescent Dental Ltd from 22 July 2016 until her contract ended on 22 June 2017. The tribunal dismissed the sex discrimination claim because it found there was insufficient evidence that Dr Waters knew the claimant was pregnant, so pregnancy could not have been an operative cause of the termination. The claimant's maternity discrimination, race discrimination, breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages claims were recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal accepted that on 5 April 2017 the claimant complained that Nurse A had not sterilised a dental mirror using the autoclave as instructed. It held that this was a qualifying disclosure and a protected disclosure because it concerned the proper sterilisation of equipment in a dental practice, where the protocols were directed at preventing cross-contamination and health and safety concerns. The tribunal also found that the claimant reasonably believed the disclosure was in the public interest.
On the whistleblowing claim, the tribunal held that ending the claimant's contract on 22 June 2017 was a detriment and that there was sufficient connection between the disclosure and the decision to terminate. It rejected the respondent's case that termination was solely for record-keeping reasons, found that workplace relationships, discrimination complaints and the board-game incident formed part of the background, and concluded that the respondent had not shown the disclosure played no part. A further hearing was directed to determine remedy.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the April 2017 complaint about Nurse A not sterilising a dental mirror using the autoclave as instructed was a protected disclosure. It held that termination of the claimant's contract on 22 June 2017 was a detriment linked to that disclosure, and remedy was left to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claim was based on the alleged discovery of the claimant's pregnancy as the reason for termination. The tribunal found insufficient evidence that Dr Waters knew she was pregnant, so pregnancy was not an operative cause of the decision. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment records no merits finding on this claim. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment records no merits finding on this claim. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment records no merits finding on this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment records no merits finding on this claim. | Withdrawn |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.13 Equality Act
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.48 ERA 1996
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Anya v University of Oxford
- Zafar v Glasgow City Council
- Bahl v The Law Society
- London Borough of Harrow v Knight
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.