Case 3310625/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Byard v Doctor Care Anywhere Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310625/2023
- Decision date
- 30 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms M Byard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Norwich on 16 and 17 July 2024, Employment Judge M Warren recorded that Ms M Byard's claims of unfair dismissal contrary to sections 98 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and were dismissed. The respondents were Doctor Care Anywhere Limited and Doctor Care Anywhere Group PLC.
The extracted judgment contains only the oral disposal and does not include written reasons or separate factual findings explaining why the claims failed. No monetary award was made or recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states that the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal contrary to sections 98 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed; this entry captures the section 98 unfair dismissal limb. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The written record also refers to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The extracted text does not set out separate factual findings or reasons for that limb, so this entry treats it as the automatic unfair dismissal / protected disclosure element. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.