Case 2207643/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Kristensen v Portman Healthcare Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207643/2021
- Decision date
- 1 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Kristensen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing the tribunal considered whether a late-May 2021 meeting between the claimant and Ms Oates retained its Employment Rights Act 1996 s.111A protected conversation status, and whether the claimant had made protected disclosures about an alleged forged signature on his 2016 contract. The claimant had been employed as a dental hygienist from May 2008 until 30 September 2021, and the respondent’s case was that the meeting addressed concerns about low utilisation and his leaving the business by agreement.
The tribunal held that the meeting remained protected by s.111A. Although the claimant had not been told he could be accompanied or leave the meeting, and the notes were not verbatim, the tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to raise conduct and performance concerns and to set out the possibility of an exit or disciplinary process. It did not find the respondent’s conduct to be bullying, harassing, or otherwise improper, and it rejected the submission that the claimant had been told he would inevitably be dismissed.
On protected disclosures, the tribunal applied s.43A and s.43B ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed, Ibrahim v HCA International and Parsons v Airplus International Ltd. It accepted that the claimant genuinely believed his signature had been forged, but found that he did not genuinely believe, at the time, that the matter was in the public interest. The tribunal characterised the matter as a private contractual dispute about his own employment contract and rights, and noted that his evidence about others was no more than that he did not know whether anyone else might be affected.
The tribunal therefore found that the claimant’s oral comments at the police-attended meeting and his later written grievance were not qualifying protected disclosures. As a result, the automatic unfair dismissal claim was struck out. The order recorded that the ordinary unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims would proceed to the final hearing listed for September 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal struck out the automatic unfair dismissal claim because it found the claimant had not made qualifying protected disclosures. The extracted text contains inconsistent date references in the disclosure chronology, but the finding applies to the alleged oral disclosure at the police-attended meeting and the later written grievance. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111A ERA 1996
- Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP v Bailey
- ACAS Code of Practice on Settlement Agreements
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Ibrahim v HCA International
- Parsons v Airplus International Ltd
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.