Case 3302552/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Hollie Harper v Greensleeves Homes Trust t/a Henley House Care Home — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302552/2023
- Decision date
- 20 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Members
- Panel members
- Mrs Handley-Howarth, Mrs Laurence-Doig
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hollie Harper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds via CVP on 29, 30 and 31 January and 1 February 2024 before Employment Judge Graham and lay members Mrs Handley-Howarth and Mrs Laurence-Doig. The claimant, Hollie Harper, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a litigation consultant.
The tribunal recorded that the complaints were for detriment under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 and automatic unfair dismissal under sections 95 and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that both complaints failed.
The judgment states only the result and does not set out written reasons, because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided in the record. The claims were therefore dismissed and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under s.95 and s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.