Case 2500793/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Nigel Stewart v Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500793/2020
- Decision date
- 17 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nigel Stewart
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNigel Stewart brought claims against Cumbria, Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust. The case was heard at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 7 and 8 January 2021, with a further remote CVP hearing on 12 February 2021 before Employment Judge Sweeney.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as not well founded. It found in the claimant's favour on wrongful dismissal, recording that that claim succeeded. The judgment does not set out the substantive reasons for those conclusions in the extracted text provided here.
No remedy was decided in this judgment. The tribunal instead directed the parties to inform it by 05 March 2021 whether a remedy hearing was required.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment records that the claim succeeded, but no remedy was determined in this decision. The parties were directed to inform the tribunal by 05 March 2021 whether a remedy hearing was required. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.