Case 2402375/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Wight v The Christie NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402375/2023
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Wight
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Wight brought complaints that she had been subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure and that she had been constructively dismissed, including a complaint of automatic unfair constructive dismissal because of protected disclosures. The tribunal sat at Manchester before Employment Judge Eeley alone on 6 January 2025 to 31 January 2025.
The judgment records that both complaints were found not well-founded and were dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment extract.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The extracted judgment therefore does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual findings or reasoning beyond the dismissal of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint of ordinary and automatically unfair constructive dismissal because of protected disclosures under sections 94, 95(1)(c), 98 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 94, 95(1)(c), 98 and 103A 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.