Case 2500227/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Robinson v Rail Futures Network Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500227/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Robinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs K Robinson brought a claim against Rail Futures Network Limited for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing took place at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 19 to 22 February 2024 before Employment Judge Sweeney, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr Y Mahmood, litigation consultant.
The written judgment records only the tribunal’s dispositive finding: the claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. No further findings of fact or reasoning are included in the extracted written record beyond the statement that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and the written record also states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s post-hearing procedure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The written judgment records that the Claimant’s claim of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and was dismissed. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. | 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.