Vol. I·6 May 2026

Search the index

Loading…

Loading page content.

Tribunal Watch

A structured, cross-cut index of UK employment tribunal decisions, built from the primary record at gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. Independent of HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice.

Not legal advice. Information on this site is a matter of public record; it is not guidance on any individual case.

Editorial

About this site
Methodology
Corrections policy
Editorial standards

Rights & privacy

Open Government Licence v3.0
Privacy notice
Data subject requests
Atom feed (recent decisions)

Mr K Coyle v Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust — Employment Tribunal 2022 | Tribunal Watch

Tribunal Watch/Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/2204867/2022

Case 2204867/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K Coyle v Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust — 2022

Case reference: 2204867/2022
Decision date: 25 August 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Norris
Venue: Central London

Indexed: 26 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr K Coyle

Respondent

Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust

Claims brought

6 categories

Disability discrimination
Other
Whistleblowing
Race discrimination
Unfair dismissal
Unlawful deduction from wages

Source tags (gov.uk)

Disability Discrimination
Interim Relief
Public Interest Disclosure
Race Discrimination and Sex Discrimination Show 3 more Trade Union Membership
Unfair Dismissal
and Unlawful Deduction from Wages

Outcomes per claim are extracted in a second pass and are not yet published on this page.

Source document

Primary record

The full judgment is available on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Judgment 1 (PDF)
Judgment 2 (PDF)
Judgment 3 (PDF)
Judgment 4 (PDF)
Judgment 5 (PDF)
Judgment 6 (PDF)

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.