Case 2223308/2024 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2223308/2024
- Decision date
- 3 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms S Campbell, Mr J Carroll
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged that she suffered detrimental treatment because of six protected disclosures. The Tribunal found that the alleged protected disclosures did not come within the statutory scheme in sections 43B and 47 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
For the first five alleged disclosures, the Tribunal did not find that it was reasonable for the claimant to believe that the disclosures tended to show the relevant failure. For the sixth alleged disclosure, it found that the claimant did not believe it was raised in the public interest and that such a belief would not have been reasonable.
The Tribunal also found that the first eight alleged detriments were brought out of time and declined to extend time. In any event, it found that the claimant had not established detrimental treatment, while noting that her job title had been left in limbo for a lengthy period during 2022 to 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment claim under section 47 Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 43B and 47 Employment Rights Act 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.