Case 2306258/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L McDonald v The Good Care Group London Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2306258/2020
- Decision date
- 29 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Tribunal
- Panel members
- Dengate, Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L McDonald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs L McDonald brought claims of unfair dismissal, detriments following making public interest disclosures, and victimisation following doing a protected act against The Good Care Group London Limited. The hearing took place at London (South) via CVP on 22-25 August 2023 before Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer with Tribunal Members Dengate and Murphy.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and dismissed it. It also held that the complaint of suffering detriments following making public interest disclosures was not well founded and dismissed it.
The tribunal further held that the complaint of victimisation following doing a protected act was not well founded and dismissed it. The judgment states that none of the claimant's claims succeeded and all were dismissed.
No monetary award was made and no remedy findings are recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal described this as a complaint of suffering detriments following making public interest disclosures and dismissed it as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal described this as a complaint of victimisation following doing a protected act and dismissed it as not well-founded. | 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.