Case 2500179/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Flinn v Lynch Healthcare Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500179/2019
- Decision date
- 8 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Flinn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Flinn was employed by Lynch Healthcare Limited from 28 August 2018 and was summarily dismissed by Mr Lynch on 21 September 2018. The complaint before the tribunal was that the dismissal was automatically unfair because the reason, or principal reason, was that he made protected disclosures contrary to sections 94 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant alleged that his dismissal was because he made protected disclosures about asbestos risk and lack of a safe working process. The tribunal found one disclosure at Pennine Way was a qualifying and protected disclosure, but held that it was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board
- Smith v Hayle Town Council
- Ross v Eddie Stobbart Limited
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.