Case 2301654/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Mercier v HCRG Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301654/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Mercier
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered a complaint brought under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, described in the reasons as a complaint of detriment arising from protected disclosures. By letter dated 10 April 2025, the claimant was given an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 6 January 2025.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the whistleblowing detriment complaint.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim or claims were still listed for hearing on 16 to 20 March 2026. No remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the complaint brought under section 43B ERA 1996, described as a complaint of detriment arising from protected disclosures, was struck out because the claimant did not comply with the Tribunal's order dated 6 January 2025 and did not make sufficient representations after the letter of 10 April 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 43B 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.