Case 3301802/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In person, supported by her son Mr E Agyemang For the v Mr P Collyer, solicitor — 2026
- Case reference
- 3301802/2025
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person, supported by her son Mr E Agyemang For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that Miss J Danquah brought proceedings against London Borough of Barnet and Nasrin Zolfarghari-Fard. At the hearing on 15 January 2026, the complaint of whistleblowing was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The Tribunal also struck out the claim against the first respondent, London Borough of Barnet, under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a), stating that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The written judgment does not set out further reasons because reasons were given orally and written reasons were not included in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the complaint of whistleblowing is dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claim against the first respondent was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The short written judgment does not identify a more specific claim type for this disposition. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.