Case 2401735/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Burgan v Elysium Healthcare Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401735/2021
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A Wells, Mr TD Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Burgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal sat at Manchester by video conference before Employment Judge Dunlop, Mr A Wells and Mr TD Wilson. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The judgment records that the claimant's claim of detriment on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure was not well-founded and was dismissed. It also records that the claims of direct race discrimination and race-related harassment were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual findings or legal reasoning, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as a claim of detriment on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure, found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment describes this as direct discrimination on the grounds of race, found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment describes this as harassment on the grounds of race, found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.