Case 3313742/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Simon Morley v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust Heard: By CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313742/2019
- Decision date
- 26 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Members
- Panel members
- Mrs A Carvell, Mr R Eyre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Simon Morley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written judgment records that Mr Morley's claims for automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for having made protected disclosures were dismissed because they had been withdrawn. No separate remedy was recorded for those claims.
The tribunal also recorded that Mr Morley's ordinary unfair dismissal claim and his disability discrimination claim failed and were dismissed. The short written record does not set out the tribunal's reasoning beyond those disposals.
The only protected characteristic engaged on the face of the judgment was disability. The decision is a brief disposal judgment and does not include a split of any award or any findings of compensation.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim said to be for having made protected disclosures; the judgment records that it was dismissed upon having been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim of detriment for having made protected disclosures; the judgment records that it was dismissed upon having been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim; the judgment says it failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination by reason of disability claim; the judgment says it failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.