Case 2208828/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Warner v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208828/2022
- Decision date
- 24 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Professor
- Panel members
- Mr D Shaw, Mr P Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Warner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Warner brought claims against University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust that were heard at London Central by CVP on 20 to 24 November 2023 before Employment Judge Professor A C Neal, with Mr D Shaw and Mr P Lewis as the lay members. The tribunal gave its judgment orally and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's Public Interest Disclosure Act detriment claim because it had been presented out of time. It also dismissed the sex discrimination claim because that claim too had been presented out of time.
The disability claim, which was pleaded as a failure to make reasonable adjustments, was dismissed. The text supplied does not include fuller written reasons for that dismissal, only the outcome recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claim that the Claimant suffered a detriment due to exercising rights under the Public Interest Disclosure Act was found to have been presented out of time and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claim alleging unlawful discrimination by reference to the protected characteristic of sex was found to have been presented out of time and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by reference to the protected characteristic of disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.