Case 2207089/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Ling (Counsel) First v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2207089/2018
- Decision date
- 1 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms N Ling (Counsel) First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard this preliminary issue in chambers on 21, 24 and 25 June 2019, with judgment sent on 1 August 2019. It decided which of the claimant's alleged disclosures could be relied on for her complaints of detriment and unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosures. The tribunal held that disclosures 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 (so far as regarding Iran), 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 were not qualifying disclosures within section 43B because of the operation of section 43B(4).
The tribunal also held that disclosures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 (so far as regarding Russia), 11, 17, 18, 19 and 20 did not fall within section 43B(4) and were therefore available to the claimant for the purposes of her detriment and unfair dismissal complaints, subject to any other issues. Written reasons were to follow. This preliminary judgment did not determine liability or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary ruling only. The tribunal held that disclosures 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 (so far as regarding Iran), 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 were not qualifying disclosures within section 43B because of section 43B(4), so they could not be relied on for the claimant's detriment complaint by reason of protected disclosures. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary ruling only. The tribunal held that disclosures 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 (so far as regarding Iran), 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 were not qualifying disclosures within section 43B because of section 43B(4), so they could not be relied on for the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint by reason of protected disclosures. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 43B(4) ERA 1996
- section 43B ERA 1996
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.