Case 2303582/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M McGhee v The members of the Executive Committee at the relevant time of the unincorporated association known as ‘Samphire’ — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303582/2022
- Decision date
- 30 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms J Cook, Ms G Mitchell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M McGhee
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was employed as Director of Samphire, an unincorporated charity based in Dover, from 4 January 2022 until her summary dismissal on 12 July 2022. The Respondent maintained she was dismissed for gross misconduct, while the Claimant contended the principal reason was that she had made protected disclosures. The hearing was confined to liability, and the disability discrimination complaint had previously been withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal in September 2023.
The Tribunal (Employment Judge Ramsden sitting with Ms J Cook and Ms G Mitchell) found that the Trustees were entitled to accept the Claimant's conduct as fundamentally breaching her contract of employment and to dismiss her summarily. It concluded that the working relationships between the Claimant, her staff and the Trustees were irremediable, and that there was a pattern of conduct showing resistance to following Trustee instructions. None of the 17 alleged detriments on the ground of protected disclosure were found to be well-founded, so the Tribunal did not need to consider time limits.
On the wages claims, the Tribunal held that the post-termination NJC pay awards for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 were not 'properly payable' under section 13(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because there was no clear contractual entitlement, policy or custom and practice supporting such payment. The TOIL claim failed for want of particularisation and any contractual basis. The holiday pay claim failed because a payment of £1,850.94 had been made on 21 July 2022 and the Claimant did not show any further sum was owed. The Tribunal concluded that none of the Claimant's complaints were well-founded and the Claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 (dismissal for making protected disclosures). The Tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was the Claimant's conduct, not the making of protected disclosures, and that the Trustees were entitled to summarily dismiss for gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | 17 alleged acts of detriment on the ground of protected disclosures under s.47B ERA 1996. The Tribunal found none of the protected disclosure detriment complaints were well-founded; consequently it did not need to consider time limits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for notice pay. The Tribunal found the Trustees were entitled to accept the Claimant's conduct as a fundamental breach of contract and dismiss summarily. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions complaint relating to TOIL compensation (Allegation 21). The Claimant did not particularise hours worked attracting TOIL or identify any contractual provision or custom and practice making payment in lieu of TOIL properly payable under s.13(3) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions complaints relating to post-termination NJC pay awards for 2021/2022 (Allegation 19) and 2022/2023 (Allegation 20). The Tribunal found no clear contractual entitlement to NJC pay awards agreed after termination, so the sums were not 'properly payable' under s.13(3) ERA 1996. |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Affleck v Newcastle Mind [1999] ICR 852
- Chandra v Mayor [2017] 1 WLR 729
- Robertson
- New Century Cleaning
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.