Case 2304864/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Dr D Robertson and others (T/a Herne Hill Group Practice) and Ms M Izzo — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304864/2020
- Decision date
- 31 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London south via CVP
- Panel members
- Ms S. Dengate, Mr S. Townsend
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs N. Nackvi brought complaints of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, detriment under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and a combined complaint of unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract. The case was heard at London South via CVP before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, sitting with Ms S. Dengate and Mr S. Townsend, on 27 to 31 March 2023.
The tribunal found that the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and dismissed it. It also dismissed the detriment complaint under section 48, finding that claim not well founded. The judgment does not set out any remedy because all of the claims were dismissed.
The tribunal likewise dismissed the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract. The written record gives no separate monetary findings or apportionment between the claims, and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment under section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Part of the combined complaint of unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Part of the combined complaint of unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.48 ERA 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.