Case 3301257/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Henry v LHR Airports Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301257/2021
- Decision date
- 1 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Henry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed all elements of the claimant's claim except one complaint concerning protected disclosure detriment. The successful complaint related to the claimant being repeatedly asked during an attendance meeting on either 17 or 22 February 2021 about who she had made disclosures to and what those disclosures were.
The tribunal found that those questions amounted to a detriment or detriments on grounds that the claimant had made protected disclosure(s). The protected disclosure(s) were identified as being contained in a specified section of an email dated 24 September 2020, later repeated to the CAA on 20 October 2020, and not in any other part of that email.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment does not record any remedy award or monetary figures.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The upheld complaint was limited to repeated questions during an attendance meeting on either 17 or 22 February 2021 about who the claimant had made disclosures to and what those disclosures were. The tribunal found this amounted to a detriment or detriments on grounds that she had made protected disclosure(s). All other elements of the claim were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The GOV.UK listing category identifies a Part Time Workers claim. The judgment states that all elements of the claimant's claim were dismissed except the specified protected disclosure detriment complaint, but gives no further detail about this claim. | 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.