Case 2414619/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Allison v University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2414619/2018
- Decision date
- 9 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Allison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Mrs S Allison's claim against University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust. The claimant said she had made qualifying public interest disclosures about health and safety on the Breast Care Unit and later complained of detriment under section 47B and Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent sought to rely on a settlement agreement signed in April 2015 to bar allegations arising before 13 April 2015.
The tribunal found that the settlement agreement did not satisfy section 203(3)(c) ERA 1996 because the claimant had not received advice from a relevant independent adviser as to the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and, in particular, its effect on her ability to pursue rights before an Employment Tribunal. It accepted the claimant's evidence that she had not spoken to Mr Town, had not been advised by him, and had only been sent the completed agreement to sign. On that basis the agreement could not prevent her from pursuing the pre-April 2015 matters.
The tribunal therefore refused the respondent's application to strike out the matters and allegations in the claim form predating 13 April 2015. It also refused the respondent's application to strike out, or alternatively require deposits for, the specified section 47B allegations. Those allegations included late payment of overtime in November 2017, alleged blacklisting within the NHS, and the handling of the Trainee Consultant Radiographer post in 2018.
In refusing strike out and deposit relief, the tribunal noted that the case was highly fact sensitive and had not yet reached full disclosure or exchange of witness evidence from the relevant protagonists. It found that the respondent had suggested arguable explanations, but those explanations could not yet be tested, and it was not satisfied that the allegations had little or no reasonable prospect of success. Limitation was expressly left to be addressed at the substantive hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's pre-13 April 2015 allegations on the basis of the settlement agreement, and refused the alternative strike-out/deposit application in relation to the section 47B allegations. The substantive whistleblowing claim was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 203(3)(c) ERA 1996
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias [2007] EWCA Civ 330
- Jansen van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames UKEAT/0096/97
- Miss S Palihakkara v British Telecommunications PLC [2006] UKEAT 0185/06/0910
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.