Case 3201108/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Warwick-Baker v The Governing Body of Frederick Bremer School and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201108/2018
- Decision date
- 8 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Prichard Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Warwick-Baker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on a preliminary hearing. The tribunal vacated the four-day hearing due to start on 12 March 2019 and relisted the matter for a six-day liability-only hearing in November and December 2019. It also directed that any remedy hearing would be separate because of the medical dimension to remedy.
The tribunal considered the legal position on whistleblowing detriment claims under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, including whether an individual respondent could be added. It recorded that the claimant's case was that she made protected disclosures, suffered detriments, became ill, was absent from work, and was then dismissed under the school's attendance procedure. The alleged detriments were said principally to have come from the headteacher, who was not part of the dismissal decision-making process.
The tribunal allowed the claimant's amendment in part, permitting the section 47B detriment amendment and the inclusion of the London Borough of Waltham Forest as second respondent. It refused the application to add Ms Smith as an individual respondent, on the basis that this was unnecessary in circumstances where the existing respondents, particularly the second respondent, were unconditionally accepting liability for whatever award might be made in the claimant's favour. No substantive liability findings were made on the whistleblowing or dismissal claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal partially allowed amendment of the ET1 to include a section 47B detriment case and the second respondent, but refused amendment to add Ms Smith as an individual respondent. No liability or remedy determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refers to a conventional section 103A automatically unfair dismissal claim and relisted the case for a liability-only hearing. No liability or remedy determination was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 48(5B) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2012] ICR 371 CA
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2018] ICR 982 CA
- Timis & Sage v Osipov [2018] EWCA CIV 2321
- Melia v Magna Kansei IRLR [2006], 117, CA
- Education (Modification of Enactments relating to Employment) (England) Order 2003
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.