Case 2402432/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Yegliss v Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402432/2021
- Decision date
- 1 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Yegliss
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment heard at Manchester by CVP on 26 August 2022 before Employment Judge McDonald sitting alone. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr A Gibson, solicitor. The tribunal’s written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal refused the respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s claim that she had been subjected to detriments for making public interest disclosures. That means the whistleblowing claim was allowed to proceed, but the merits of the underlying allegation were not decided in this judgment.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was, at all material times, a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of post traumatic stress disorder. The respondent conceded that she was also a disabled person at all material times by reason of polyarthropathy. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s claim that she was subjected to detriments for making public interest disclosures was refused. The tribunal did not determine the substantive whistleblowing liability issue in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 Equality Act 2010
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.