Case 2303816/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Hooper v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303816/2017
- Decision date
- 28 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
- Venue
- Ashford
- Panel members
- Mrs S Dengate, Mr N Phillips
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Hooper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mrs D Hooper, brought a complaint that she had been subjected to a detriment for making a protected disclosure contrary to s47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent was Kent & Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust. The hearing took place at Ashford on 12 to 15 November 2019 before Employment Judge Corrigan, sitting with Mrs S Dengate and Mr N Phillips.
The Tribunal recorded that it had not found the complaint well-founded. It therefore dismissed the Claimant’s complaint. No remedy award was recorded in the written judgment extract.
The judgment is brief and gives no further written reasons because reasons had been given orally at the hearing. On the face of the written record, the only substantive outcome is that the whistleblowing detriment claim failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The complaint was that the Claimant was subjected to a detriment for making a protected disclosure, contrary to s47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal found that complaint not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s47B 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.