Case 3304029/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Manjit Mahey v ICTS (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304029/2022
- Decision date
- 14 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms J Costley, Mr F Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Manjit Mahey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Watford Employment Tribunal from 8 to 12 April 2024 before Employment Judge Young, sitting with members Ms J Costley and Mr F Wright.
The claimant brought complaints of detriment for making a protected disclosure and unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that both complaints were not well-founded and dismissed them.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing. It also records that written reasons were provided in respect of an application by the claimant for an order, following a request by the respondent, but the judgment does not set out further reasoning on the substantive complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes the complaint as being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure and states it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.