Case 2409475/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Edwards v Hoghton Street Dental Care Limited HELD AT: Manchester (by CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2409475/2023
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Edwards
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Edwards brought claims against Hoghton Street Dental Care Limited for unfair dismissal by way of constructive dismissal, detriment because of a protected disclosure under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, and breach of contract in relation to pension contributions. The tribunal dismissed each claim.
The written record states that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No monetary award was made on any claim, and no remedy figures are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal by way of constructive dismissal contrary to Part X Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment because of a protected disclosure contrary to section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim in relation to pension contributions; dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.