Case 2406385/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Natalie Hudson v Liverpool Heart & Chest NHS Foundation Trust HELD AT: Liverpool — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406385/2022
- Decision date
- 19 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Natalie Hudson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Natalie Hudson brought complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and unfair dismissal because she had made a protected disclosure under section 103A. Employment Judge Johnson heard the case in Liverpool over 12 to 14 August 2024 and gave the judgment orally at the hearing.
The Tribunal held that both complaints were not well founded and therefore unsuccessful. The judgment does not set out written reasons, and no separate findings, liability analysis, or remedy assessment are recorded in the written decision.
No monetary award was made. The written record states only the dismissal of the claims and notes that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal note.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and unsuccessful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of unfair dismissal for the reason or principal reason of making a protected disclosure contrary to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and unsuccessful. | 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.