Case 2400168/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Sarah Cadwallader v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400168/2024
- Decision date
- 29 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
- Panel members
- Ms L Atkinson, Mr M Stemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sarah Cadwallader
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSarah Cadwallader’s case against Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust was heard at Manchester by video from 23 to 27 June 2025 before Employment Judge Cline, Ms L Atkinson and Mr M Stemp. The written judgment records two claims: a claim for detriment after making a protected disclosure and a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability.
The tribunal recorded that the protected-disclosure detriment claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. It also found that the reasonable-adjustments claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No additional findings of fact, legal tests, or remedy calculations are set out in the written record provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the claim for detriment after making a protected disclosure was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.