Case 1801273/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M I Khan v Doncaster Mosque Trust and 4 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801273/2023
- Decision date
- 18 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
6 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Preliminary Hearing in Public before Employment Judge Ayre, sitting alone in Sheffield on 10 October 2023, to determine whether the claimant, an Imam and teacher employed by the First Respondent (a charitable trust), had made protected disclosures within section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on four occasions between October 2021 and July 2022. The claimant gave evidence; the respondents called no witness evidence. The disclosures concerned alleged failures by the trustees to log and account properly for cash donations made by the public, the use of approximately £35,000 raised for a building renovation, and unpaid utility bills said to involve donated funds.
The tribunal found that on each of the four occasions the claimant conveyed information (rather than mere allegations) about the respondents' record-keeping and handling of donations, and that he genuinely believed the information tended to show a failure to comply with a legal obligation, namely the trustees' obligation as a charity to keep proper accounting records and account for monies received. The judge was not persuaded the claimant believed a criminal offence was being committed. Applying the public-interest factors identified in Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731, the judge accepted that the claimant's belief in the public interest of the disclosures was both genuine and objectively reasonable, given that the funds were donations from a relatively large number of worshippers and the First Respondent is a charity and place of worship.
The judge concluded that all four disclosures were qualifying disclosures under section 43B ERA 1996, and, having been made to those involved in running the employer, were protected disclosures under section 43C ERA 1996. The hearing did not determine detriment, dismissal, discrimination, deduction or breach-of-contract issues, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary Hearing in Public. The tribunal determined only the discrete preliminary issue of whether the claimant had made protected disclosures under sections 43A/43B/43C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on four specified occasions (29 October 2021, 11 February 2022, 18 April 2022 and 21 July 2022). The tribunal found that each of the four disclosures was a qualifying and protected disclosure. This is a preliminary determination in the claimant's favour on the protected-disclosure issue; it is not a final determination of the underlying detriment/dismissal whistleblowing claim, and no remedy was awarded at this hearing. Other pleaded claims (unfair dismissal, religion/belief discrimination, unlawful deduction of wages, breach of contract) were not adjudicated at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 43A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43C Employment Rights Act 1996
- Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) and anor v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731
- Charities Act 1993
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.