Case 2604008/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Carmen Josephine Clark v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust Record of an Attended Full Hearing heard at the Employment Tribunal — 2025
- Case reference
- 2604008/2020
- Decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- Lincoln
- Panel members
- Mr A Blomefield, Mr C Goldson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Carmen Josephine Clark
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal because of whistleblowing, and constructive unfair dismissal. The respondent accepted that the claimant had made public interest disclosures in February and March 2017, but resisted all claims.
The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the reason Consultant X did not provide referral work to the claimant was the Samra edict, not the claimant's whistleblowing. It found no causal link between whistleblowing and the job description exercise or the claimant's resignation.
The tribunal also held that any isolated allegation of whistleblowing-related victimisation connected with Consultant X had ended by 4 March 2019 and was out of time when the claim was presented on 6 November 2020. All claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detrimental treatment on the grounds of whistleblowing under section 47B ERA 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for automatic unfair dismissal because of whistleblowing under section 103A ERA 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Claim for constructive unfair dismissal under section 95 ERA 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 47B ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- section 95 ERA 1996
- section 43B ERA 1996
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.