Case 2500346/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Gan v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500346/2022
- Decision date
- 15 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Gan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a private preliminary hearing, the tribunal clarified the respondent's name as County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust. The claimant agreed that claims against Ms Sue Jacques should be dismissed upon withdrawal. The claimant's position about whether her employment had ended changed during the hearing; the tribunal recorded her position as being that she resigned in November 2009.
The tribunal considered complaints of unlawful deductions from wages, unfair constructive dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for protected disclosures, and race discrimination. It found the complaints were brought many years out of time. The claimant relied on mental health reasons for not presenting the claims earlier, but the tribunal noted that no medical evidence had been produced and that she had continued to correspond with the respondent, its data protection officer, the ICO, and solicitors during the relevant period.
On whistleblowing, the tribunal was not satisfied that the matters identified by the claimant contained factually specific information capable of amounting to qualifying disclosures under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On race discrimination, the claimant relied principally on reference-checking matters and alleged comments including "Chinese is silly" and "Silly is not an issue". The tribunal concluded that the reference-checking complaints could not be linked to Chinese nationality and that it would not be proportionate or fair to allow the comment complaint to proceed after the passage of time.
The tribunal concluded that none of the complaints had any reasonable prospect of success and that this was an exceptional case in which the discrimination allegations should also be struck out.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out and dismissed on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was struck out and dismissed on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success; the tribunal also noted that, on the claimant's case, her employment ended in November 2009 and she did not have two years' continuous service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures was struck out and dismissed on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of unlawful race discrimination was struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaints of detriment because the claimant had made protected disclosures were struck out and dismissed on the ground that they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(e) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Kwele-Siakam v Co-operative Group Limited
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
- Overriding Objective
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.