Case 3309200/2024 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 3309200/2024
Decision date: 5 March 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge M Warren Appearances

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal considered Miss Begum's application for interim relief following her dismissal on 13 September 2024. The application was based on her case that she was automatically unfairly dismissed because she had made protected disclosures.

The tribunal identified two alleged disclosures: one at a grievance hearing on 15 March 2024 concerning discrimination allegations, and another on 22 May 2024 concerning alleged overcharging to a charity client. It considered the second allegation potentially capable of being a protected disclosure, but found the alleged disclosures were not clearly set out and that the respondent had already been discussing dismissal for performance reasons before the alleged disclosures.

On a summary assessment of the material available at the interim relief hearing, the tribunal could not say the automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosures was likely to succeed. The application for interim relief was refused.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The judgment refused an application for interim relief based on alleged automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosures. The underlying claim was not finally determined.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.