Case 2305753/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Brinton v Signature Senior Lifestyle Operations Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024

Case reference: 2305753/2023
Decision date: 23 October 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Burge Appearances
Venue: London South

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms S Brinton

Respondent

Signature Senior Lifestyle Operations Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 21 October 2024, Employment Judge Burge considered Ms S Brinton's complaints against Signature Senior Lifestyle Operations Ltd. The judgment records two whistleblowing claims: automatic unfair dismissal for having made protected disclosures, and detriment complaints said to have arisen in April and May 2023 for the same reason.

Both claims were dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that neither claim had been presented within the applicable time limit, and that it had been reasonably practicable to present them in time. No merits findings on the underlying disclosure or detriment allegations are recorded in this decision, and no remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Automatic unfair dismissal for having made protected disclosures. Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Complaints of detriment in April and May 2023 for having made protected disclosures. Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because they were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.