Case 2401428/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v NHS England and Others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401428/2020
- Decision date
- 3 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, represented by Gunner Cooke LLP, notified the tribunal on 1 July 2020 that he was withdrawing his claims against NHS England, Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership. He asked that the claims not be dismissed, saying this was necessary to avoid estoppel issues if he pursued complaints or claims in other courts, tribunals, or competent bodies, including data protection concerns before the Information Commissioner’s Office, arising from the facts set out in the ET1.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a legitimate reason to reserve the right to bring claims in other jurisdictions arising from the same or similar facts pleaded in the ET1 and Grounds of Complaint, and concluded that it was in the interests of justice not to dismiss the claim. The judgment therefore recorded the claims as withdrawn but not dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal also noted, for the avoidance of doubt, that the claimant could not reactivate his whistleblowing claim in the Employment Tribunal on the same facts. No merits findings or monetary remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant withdrew his claims against all respondents by email. The tribunal ordered that the claims be treated as withdrawn but not dismissed on withdrawal, and noted that the whistleblowing claim could not be reactivated in the Employment Tribunal on the same facts. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 51
- rule 52
- rule 92
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.