Case 3204640/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Tracey Moffat v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2024
- Case reference
- 3204640/2022
- Decision date
- 19 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms J Henry, Mr L O'Callaghan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Tracey Moffat
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at the East London Hearing Centre on 12, 13, 14 and 18 June 2024 before Employment Judge Gardiner, sitting with members Ms J Henry and Mr L O'Callaghan. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by counsel.
The written judgment records that none of the Claimant's complaints were well founded and that they were dismissed. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The written judgment records that none of the Claimant's complaints were well founded and that they were dismissed. The complaint is identified from the listing category Public Interest Disclosure; the written judgment does not set out particulars or reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment records that none of the Claimant's complaints were well founded and that they were dismissed. The complaint is identified from the listing category Race Discrimination; the written judgment does not set out particulars or reasons. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment records that none of the Claimant's complaints were well founded and that they were dismissed. The complaint is identified from the listing category Unfair Dismissal; the written judgment does not set out particulars or reasons. | 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.
- 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.