Case 3310727/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Darlow Stearn, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310727/2023
- Decision date
- 8 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms E Darlow Stearn, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing on 4 October 2024, Employment Judge Tynan sitting alone determined whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaint under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal held that, with effect from 16 March 2023, Dr M O M Mahgoub was an employee of North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust because he had entered into a contract of employment with the respondent.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to determine the claimant’s complaint that he was unfairly dismissed because he had made a protected disclosure. No merits findings on the dismissal claim itself, and no remedy decision, are recorded in this judgment on preliminary issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that with effect from 16 March 2023 the claimant was an employee within s.230 ERA 1996 and that it therefore had jurisdiction to determine the s.103A protected-disclosure unfair dismissal complaint. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.