Case 3202273/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Ghale v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 3202273/2020
- Decision date
- 22 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Ghale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal, finding that it was not well-founded.
The tribunal found that the claimant's employment was transferred as the result of a service provision change under regulation 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claims for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract relating to contractual redundancy pay, finding that those claims were not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The judgment states that the claimant's employment was transferred as the result of a service provision change under regulation 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a breach of contract claim relating to contractual redundancy pay, and states that it was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- regulation 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
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.