Case 2202274/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F West v Ms E Evans-Jarvis — 2023
- Case reference
- 2202274/2022
- Decision date
- 9 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms Z Darmas, Ms J Marshall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F West
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Ms Elvin's claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for making protected disclosures against Queen's Crescent Community Association and Mr Miah. It first set out the alleged disclosures, which concerned funding allocations, reporting, staffing budgets, and alleged misreporting. The tribunal found that the dismissal was admitted, but that the case turned on whether Ms Elvin had made any protected disclosures and, if so, whether they were the reason for her treatment and dismissal.
On the disclosure findings, the tribunal accepted that some of Ms Elvin's early questions in August 2020 and later communications contained limited information about staffing rates and budget figures, but it found that she had not yet formed a reasonable belief that there was a failure to comply with a legal obligation, and that she had not shown she believed she was acting in the public interest. The August 2020 email of 11 August was treated as questions only. The alleged December 2020 disclosure was not proved on the evidence. The tribunal found that in March 2021 and again in November 2021 Ms Elvin did disclose information about funding allocation and reporting, but again there was no evidence that she held the required beliefs as to legal breach or public interest.
The tribunal therefore concluded that Ms Elvin had not made any protected disclosures. That meant the automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because the disclosures did not form the reason or principal reason for dismissal, and the detriment claim failed because the complained-of acts were not done on the ground of protected disclosure. The tribunal found instead that Mr Miah dismissed Ms Elvin because of genuinely held concerns about late reports and her performance, and that those concerns were the sole reasons for the decision. It also rejected the allegation that the 12 July 2022 safeguarding referral was a false or malicious detriment, finding that referral to the LADO was the proper course in the circumstances.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 based on protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Section 47B ERA 1996 detriment complaints, including alleged failure to investigate, pressure to file reports, capability action, dismissal-related conduct, and the LADO referral. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Timis v Osipov
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.