Case 2500832/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Moss v St Oswald’s Hospice Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500832/2021
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
- Venue
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Moss
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Newcastle upon Tyne Hearing Centre on 4 and 5 January 2022 before Employment Judge Johnson sitting alone. The claimant was Mr J Moss and the respondent was St Oswald’s Hospice Limited.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, stating that it was not well founded. It also dismissed the claimant’s separate complaint of unfair dismissal, again finding that it was not well founded.
The judgment does not record any monetary award or separate remedy assessment, and it does not set out further reasoning beyond the stated dismissals.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.