Case 2400211/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Grier v St Matthew’s Catholic Primary School Governing Body — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400211/2022
- Decision date
- 28 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Members
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr A Clark, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Grier
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Liverpool on 10 to 14 June 2024, a tribunal comprising Employment Judge Horne and lay members Mr A Clark and Mr J Murdie unanimously dismissed Mrs H Grier’s complaint of detriment on the ground of a protected disclosure. It held that she did not make a protected disclosure, that the claim had been presented after the expiry of the statutory time limit for all of the alleged detriments, and that for all except one detriment the tribunal also found the detrimental act or failure was not done on the ground that she had made any disclosure.
The tribunal also stated that, if the claimant had been constructively dismissed, the dismissal would not have been unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It expressly recorded that this judgment did not affect the separate complaint of unfair dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996, and that it had not yet determined whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed within section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment on the ground of a protected disclosure dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure, that the claim was presented after the statutory time limit for all alleged detriments, and that for all except one detriment the act or failure was not done because of any disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Conditional finding only. The tribunal said that if the claimant was constructively dismissed, the dismissal was not unfair under section 103A ERA 1996, but it had not yet determined whether she had been constructively dismissed within section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.