Case 2500189/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D. Coates v Abbeyfield Northumbria ( a company limited by guarantee) — 2026
- Case reference
- 2500189/2025
- Decision date
- 12 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Panel members
- Mr. Edmondson, Mr. Cattell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D. Coates
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Ms D. Coates brought claims against Abbeyfield Northumbria arising from alleged constructive unfair dismissal and protected disclosures. The hearing took place at Newcastle upon Tyne Employment Tribunal from 09 to 12 February 2026 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, Mr. Edmondson and Mr. Cattell.
The tribunal dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal claim, the protected-disclosure detriment claim, and the claim that the dismissal was automatically unfair because of protected disclosures. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claim that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim that the claimant was subjected to detriment or detriments on the ground that she had made protected disclosure or disclosures was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim that the dismissal was automatically unfair because the reason or principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosure or disclosures was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.