Case 2404690/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Browne v Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404690/2022
- Decision date
- 6 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Browne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester Employment Tribunal on 31 October 2023, Employment Judge Howard considered allegations by Mr D Browne against Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr P Loftus, solicitor.
The judgment records that the claimant's allegations that disclosures identified in the amended particulars of claim as PIDs 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 qualified for protection pursuant to S43(1)(b) ERA 1996, concerning failure to comply with any legal obligation, were struck out. The stated ground was that those allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.
No remedy award is recorded in this judgment, and no monetary figures are given. The judgment does not determine any recorded disability discrimination or unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment strikes out the allegations that the listed disclosures qualify for protection pursuant to S43(1)(b) ERA 1996; it does not record final outcomes for any unfair dismissal or disability discrimination claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- S43(1)(b) ERA 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.