Case 2409495/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Catherine Morris v Ms Suzanne Clague trading as Conifers Care Home — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409495/2022
- Decision date
- 18 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms C Gallagher, Mrs D Radcliffe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Catherine Morris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Catherine Morris brought whistleblowing/public interest disclosure complaints against Ms Suzanne Clague trading as Conifers Care Home. The tribunal found that the claimant made three protected disclosures under s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996.
It found that two of the detriments alleged on the grounds of those disclosures were well founded under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996, specifically the matters identified at points 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 against NG only. The claimant’s remaining detriment allegations were not well founded.
By way of remedy, the tribunal awarded £98.01 gross for non-payment for the shift scheduled for 13 July 2022, plus £3,000 injury to feelings on that head and £500 injury to feelings for NG ignoring the claimant. The total award was £3,598.01, and the written record notes that interest would arise only if the award remained unpaid after the relevant decision day of 18 November 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant made three protected disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996. It upheld two of the alleged detriments under s.47B ERA 1996, being the matters at points 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 against NG only, and found the remaining detriment allegations were not well founded. | Upheld | — | £3,598 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,598
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £98
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12
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.