Case 1601669/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Dop v The Governing Body of Darland School and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601669/2022
- Decision date
- 9 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms C Peel, Ms J Southall
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms T Dop
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Cardiff by CVP on 2 to 6 September 2024 before Employment Judge C Sharp, Ms C Peel and Ms J Southall. In its unanimous judgment, it recorded that the Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed.
The Tribunal also dismissed the Claimant’s claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA and the claim of detriment due to the making of a protected disclosure, each being found not well founded. The judgment text does not set out written reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No compensation or other monetary remedy is recorded in the judgment, and no separate award is identified for any of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claimant’s claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claimant’s claim of detriment due to the making of a protected disclosure was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.