Case 2415940/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Hunter v Tameside College — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415940/2020
- Decision date
- 1 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms A Jackson, Mr BJ McCaughey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Hunter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the three emails relied on by Mrs K Hunter were not public interest disclosures, whether considered individually or together. As a result, the claims for detriment arising from protected disclosures and the automatic unfair dismissal claim failed and were dismissed.
The tribunal also found that Mrs Hunter had not shown that she had an impairment meeting the legal definition of disability at s.6 of the Equality Act, so the disability discrimination claims were dismissed. It further found that she had not been unfairly dismissed. No monetary award was made.
The judgment adds that none of the claims brought by Mr Hunter in the case were well-founded and that they were all dismissed, although the extracted text does not specify their legal basis.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the three emails relied on by the claimant were not public interest disclosures, either individually or collectively, so the detriment complaints and the automatic unfair dismissal complaint failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant had not satisfied it that she had an impairment meeting the legal definition of disability at s.6 Equality Act. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had not been unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that none of the claims brought by Mr Hunter in the case were well-founded and that they were all dismissed, but the extracted text does not identify their legal basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 Equality Act
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.