Case 3300446/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Mercel Hislop v Elders Voice — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300446/2022
- Decision date
- 5 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr B Dykes, Ms S Johnstone
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Mercel Hislop
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Young sat with Mr B Dykes and Ms S Johnstone and heard the case on 20-24 May 2024. The claimant was Mrs Mercel Hislop and the respondent was Elders Voice.
The tribunal's unanimous decision was that the claimant's complaints of being subjected to detriments for making a protected disclosure were not well-founded and were dismissed. The decision record does not set out the tribunal's substantive reasons, because it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment extract. The written record notes that written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made at the hearing or a written request is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claim was described as complaints of being subjected to detriments for making a protected disclosure. The written record states that the tribunal's reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons are not provided in this document unless requested. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.