Case 2413668/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Ahmed v 1 Arcare Boscobel Ltd 2 Moira Ellison 3 Derek Ellison — 2019
- Case reference
- 2413668/2018
- Decision date
- 5 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tom Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Ahmed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Liverpool on 1 April 2019 before Employment Judge Tom Ryan, the tribunal considered strike-out applications in a case brought by Miss E Ahmed against Arcare Boscobel Ltd and two individual respondents. The tribunal struck out the protected-disclosure allegations in the proceedings except for the allegation that the claimant made a protected disclosure to the 2nd respondent on 29 June 2017 concerning the administration of the funds of AR.
The tribunal also struck out the allegation that the claimant was subjected to a detriment because she had made a protected disclosure, holding that it had no reasonable prospect of success. By contrast, the 1st respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint and the unfair dismissal complaint by reason of having made a protected disclosure was refused, so those complaints were permitted to proceed.
The tribunal made a deposit order in relation to the unfair dismissal complaints, with the order recorded separately. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal struck out the protected-disclosure allegations except for the allegation that the claimant made a protected disclosure to the 2nd respondent on 29 June 2017 concerning the administration of the funds of AR. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The allegation that the claimant was subjected to a detriment because she had made a protected disclosure was struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The 1st respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint was refused; the merits were not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The 1st respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint by reason of having made a protected disclosure was refused; the merits were not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.