Case 3309346/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Amber Stoter v Gain Healthcare Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3309346/2023
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baran
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs F Tankard, Mr A Scott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Amber Stoter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that Ms Amber Stoter's complaint of automatic unfair dismissal contrary to s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and succeeded.
The Tribunal also unanimously held that her complaint of victimisation contrary to s27 of the Equality Act 2010 was well-founded and succeeded. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not set out further factual findings or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal contrary to s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and succeeded. No remedy amount is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the complaint of victimisation contrary to s27 of the Equality Act 2010 was well-founded and succeeded. The written record does not identify a protected characteristic or state a remedy amount. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.