Case 2404335/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr S Haider v George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404335/2024
- Decision date
- 20 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr S Haider
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 17 July 2025, Employment Judge M Butler found that Dr S Haider had not made any qualifying disclosures before the alleged detriments or dismissal. The judgment states that there was no qualifying disclosure between mid-April and 10 May 2024, none on 08 May 2024, and for the avoidance of doubt none on either 10/11 April 2024 or 09 May 2024.
The tribunal also found that the alleged qualifying disclosure of 16 May 2024 post-dated all of the allegations in the claim and therefore could not have been a cause of any of them. On that basis, the claims that the claimant had been subjected to a detriment because of making a qualifying disclosure, and that he had been dismissed because of making a qualifying disclosure, were both dismissed.
The judgment records that the case will proceed to final hearing only in respect of ordinary unfair dismissal. No remedy was assessed at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim that the claimant was subjected to a detriment on the grounds of having made a qualifying disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim that the claimant was dismissed on the grounds of having made a qualifying disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.