Case 1806468/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr D Henderson v Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1806468/2023
- Decision date
- 25 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr D Henderson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Leeds on 25 November 2024 before Employment Judge Lancaster, the tribunal recorded that Dr D Henderson's claims against Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust included unfair dismissal, including automatically unfair dismissal for having made a protected qualifying disclosure, protected qualifying disclosure detriment, and unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The judgment states that those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal also noted that only the claims identified in the accompanying Case Management Order would proceed to final hearing, and that any other complaints were necessarily withdrawn. No liability findings or monetary remedy were recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Included automatically unfair dismissal for having made a protected qualifying disclosure; the judgment says the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected qualifying disclosure detriment; the judgment says the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability; the judgment says the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
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.