Case 2203775/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M. Murphy, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203775/2021
- Decision date
- 22 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms K A Church, Ms K O'Shaughnessy
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms M. Murphy, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It stated that any award would be subject to deductions for contribution to dismissal and under Polkey, to be determined.
The tribunal also upheld a protected disclosure detriment claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, limited to the finding that the claimant was marginalised and isolated between January 2020 and her dismissal. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A and all other protected disclosure detriment allegations were dismissed.
The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination and harassment claims relating to race and religion or belief. The list of issues records that the age discrimination claim was withdrawn in its entirety; the provided truncated text lists victimisation issues but does not contain a separate express victimisation outcome.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeds, with any award subject to contribution and Polkey deductions to be determined. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The section 47B protected disclosure detriment claim succeeds only in respect of the allegation that the claimant was marginalised and isolated in the period January 2020 until dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and all other section 47B protected disclosure detriment allegations were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The list of issues states that the age discrimination claim was withdrawn in its entirety. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct discrimination claims because of race under sections 13 and 39 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination |
Legal tests applied
6 references- sections 94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 13 and 39 Equality Act 2010
- sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010
- Polkey
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.