Case 2302489/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Dominey v Angel Healthcare Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302489/2020
- Decision date
- 12 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Members
- Panel members
- Mr G Anderson, Mr S Townsend
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Dominey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London South on 11 and 12 April 2022, the unanimous Employment Tribunal, chaired by Employment Judge Tsamados with Mr G Anderson and Mr S Townsend, heard Mr W Dominey’s claim against Angel Healthcare Ltd. The written judgment records that the case was determined in person/CVP public hearing and that the tribunal deliberated in chambers on the morning of 12 April 2022.
The tribunal found that the Claimant’s complaint of automatic unfair dismissal because he made a protected interest disclosure was unfounded. On that basis, the whistleblowing claim was dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
The record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The extracted text does not set out the tribunal’s detailed reasoning beyond the dismissal itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The written record states that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal because the Claimant made a protected interest disclosure was unfounded and dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not set out in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.