Case 2402053/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Stacey Feeney v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402053/2024
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Thompson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Stacey Feeney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 4 June 2025 before Employment Judge Thompson sitting alone. The claimant, Stacey Feeney, appeared in person and the respondent, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, was represented by counsel. The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and issued a short written judgment record dated 4 June 2025 and sent to the parties on 8 July 2025.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal brought pursuant to section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It recorded that the complaint was not well-founded. The judgment does not set out further reasons in the written record provided.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaint of redundancy pay, finding that it was not well-founded. No monetary award was made and no separate remedy figures were recorded in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal pursuant to section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the complaint of redundancy pay was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.
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.