Case 2408271/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Sulllivan v E-Act — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408271/2022
- Decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms L Atkinson, Mr P Dobson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Sulllivan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by E-ACT as a receptionist and alleged that she made numerous protected disclosures between September 2021 and June 2022 about matters including reception support, safeguarding and health and safety. The tribunal found that she made protected disclosures only in the ways identified in the list of issues as disclosures (a) and (l).
The tribunal did not find that the claimant was subjected to detriments on the grounds of the protected disclosures it found had been made. It also held that the protected disclosure detriment claim was out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the applicable time limit.
The claimant also alleged that E-ACT's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract entitling her to resign and claim unfair constructive dismissal, including a contention that any dismissal was because of protected disclosures. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as out of time, finding that it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found protected disclosures (a) and (l), but did not find detriments on the grounds of those disclosures. It also found the protected disclosure detriment claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. The prompt text is truncated, so detail on the full reasoning is limited. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal described the claim as unfair (constructive) dismissal and dismissed it because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. The prompt text is truncated, so detail on any alternative merits reasoning is limited. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 43B(1)(a)-(f)
- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.