Case 3303625/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ashish Nath v Meera Nursing Home Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303625/2020
- Decision date
- 11 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Members
- Panel members
- Mrs J Costly, Mr L Hoey
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Ashish Nath
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote hearing in February 2022, the unanimous tribunal found that the claimant made one protected disclosure on 3 July 2019 concerning the audit of Ms Susie Magnier and her registration or authorisation for data control purposes. It rejected the claimant's other two alleged whistleblowing disclosures as not protected disclosures.
On the whistleblowing detriment issues, the tribunal found that 4 out of 18 alleged detriments were established. It also rejected the claim that the respondent dismissed the claimant because he had made a protected disclosure under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal nevertheless found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed in breach of s94 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found an unlawful deduction from wages under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 for underpayment or non-payment of wages due for 2 days in January 2020 and 5 days in February 2020.
The judgment did not fix compensation. It recorded that the case would be listed for a remedy hearing if the parties were unable to agree compensation.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant made a protected disclosure on 3 July 2019 concerning the audit of Ms Susie Magnier and her registration or authorisation for data control purposes. It found that the claimant's other two alleged whistleblowing disclosures were not protected disclosures, and that 4 out of 18 alleged detriments were made out. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal rejected the allegation that the respondent dismissed the claimant because he had made a protected disclosure, under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant, in breach of s94 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction of wages contrary to s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of underpayment or non-payment of wages due for 2 days in January 2020 and 5 days in February 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s13 Employment Rights Act 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.