Case 2601584/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Mwape v University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (“the third respondent” or “R3”) — 2018
- Case reference
- 2601584/2018
- Decision date
- 3 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Mwape
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out claims or, alternatively, for deposit orders, and on whether the claimant should be permitted to amend her claim to include constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant's grievances and related interviews could, on their face, constitute public interest disclosures, and that her complaints about isolation, redeployment, lack of support and resignation raised factual issues that required determination at a final hearing.
The tribunal held that the whistleblowing detriment claim was not out of time because the redeployment issue was capable of being a continuing act up to the claimant's resignation. It found that the claim had more than little reasonable prospect of success and therefore refused both strike out and a deposit order.
The tribunal allowed the constructive unfair dismissal amendment despite the claim being brought out of time, applying the amendment authorities and concluding that the proposed claim was closely linked to the existing factual scenario and did not cause significant additional prejudice to the respondent. The age and race discrimination claims were struck out because the claimant had pleaded and particularised no facts beyond asserting protected characteristics and belief, and had not raised age or race discrimination in the internal grievance material.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed/struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed/struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal refused to strike out the protected disclosure detriment claim and did not order a deposit; the claim was permitted to proceed and was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal allowed an amendment so that the constructive unfair dismissal claim, including constructive unfair dismissal by reason of whistleblowing under s103A ERA 1996, could proceed; merits were not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- rules 37 and 39 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1
- Section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Anyanwu and another v South Bank Student's Union and another
- Chandhok and another v Tirkey
- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore
- Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd
- British Newspaper Printing Corporation (North) Limited v Kelly and others
- Ali v Office of National Statistics
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.