Case 2501540/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Rachael Hall v Tarran & Co Financial Planning Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501540/2023
- Decision date
- 13 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Sheila
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Sheila Don, Peter Chapman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rachael Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that all three complaints brought by Rachael Hall against Tarran & Co Financial Planning Limited were not well-founded and dismissed them. The dismissed complaints were: detriments in contravention of section 47B ERA 1996; dismissal for making a protected disclosure under sections 111 and 103A ERA 1996; and dismissal for alleging infringement of a relevant statutory right under sections 111 and 104 ERA 1996.
The written record does not set out the Tribunal's oral reasons. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint under section 48 ERA 1996 that the claimant was subjected to detriments in contravention of section 47B ERA 1996. The written record contains only the dispositive order; oral reasons were given but are not included in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint under sections 111 and 103A ERA 1996 that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant had made a protected disclosure within section 43A ERA 1996. The written record contains only the dispositive order; oral reasons were given but are not included in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under sections 111 and 104 ERA 1996 that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant had alleged infringement of a relevant statutory right. The written record contains only the dispositive order; oral reasons were given but are not included in the text. | 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.