Case 2407426/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Cope v Ramsay Health Care UK Operations Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407426/2024
- Decision date
- 16 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Cope
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 at the relevant time. The complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract were dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine them.
The Tribunal also found that the claimant's grievance of 27 June 2024 was not a qualifying disclosure within the meaning of section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996. The complaints of protected disclosure detriment and/or dismissal were dismissed, and all claims in the proceedings were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 at the relevant time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 at the relevant time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal found the claimant's grievance of 27 June 2024 was not a qualifying disclosure within the meaning of section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996. The complaints of protected disclosure detriment and/or dismissal were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B 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.