Case 2305269/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Wardlaw v Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305269/2019
- Decision date
- 26 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Wardlaw
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr M Wardlaw's complaint against Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust was presented outside the statutory time limit when it was reasonably practicable to present it in time.
On that basis, Employment Judge Nash held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the claims. All claims were dismissed. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The gov.uk listing category indicates a public interest disclosure claim; the judgment itself refers only to all claims being dismissed because the complaint was presented outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing category indicates an unfair dismissal claim; the judgment itself refers only to all claims being dismissed because the complaint was presented outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing category indicates an unlawful deduction from wages claim; the judgment itself refers only to all claims being dismissed because the complaint was presented outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | 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.