Case 1803255/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Alan Morton v The Health and Social Care Information Centre t/a NHS Digital Heard by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803255/2022
- Decision date
- 27 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alan Morton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAlan Morton brought claims against The Health and Social Care Information Centre t/a NHS Digital. The judgment records that the equal pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims for a redundancy payment, unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract, and direct age discrimination because they were brought outside the respective time limits. The Tribunal stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider those claims.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment records that the equal pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because it was brought outside the time limit and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was brought outside the time limit and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'unauthorised deductions from wages'; dismissed as out of time with no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because it was brought outside the time limit and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment describes this as direct age discrimination; dismissed as out of time with no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.