Case 1800924/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr F Villani v York & Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and 1 other — 2024

Case reference: 1800924/2024
Decision date: 15 November 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Davies
Venue: Hull
Panel members: Mr K Lannaman, Ms R Hodgkinson

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr F Villani

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

All claims against York & Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust were dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant.

The Tribunal found that York Teaching Hospitals Facilities Management LLP subjected the Claimant to trade union detriments by telephoning him on 15 June 2023 to check on his whereabouts and instruct him to return to Bridlington Hospital, and by requesting colleagues to submit Datix reports about him in September 2023. It found those complaints were contrary to s 146(1)(b) Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and were presented in time because they formed a series of similar acts.

The remaining claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed as not well-founded. The Second Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £10,000 compensation for injury to feelings.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	All claims against the First Respondent were dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant; the short written judgment does not specify the claim types.	Withdrawn	—	—
Trade union	The upheld complaints were detriment complaints under s 146(1)(b) Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 concerning a telephone call on 15 June 2023 and Datix report requests in September 2023.	Upheld	—	£10,000
Other	The remaining claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed as not well-founded; the short written judgment does not identify their specific legal types.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £10,000; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.