Case 3314998/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Forward v Guildowns Group Practice (a firm) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314998/2022
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms H Edwards, Mr P Hough
Parties
2 namedMrs R Forward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge George with members Ms H Edwards and Mr P Hough found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent, but that her complaints of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment on grounds of protected disclosures were not well founded and were dismissed. The Tribunal held that the claimant's communications about Mrs Walker did not amount to qualifying disclosures because they concerned personal conduct rather than matters reasonably believed to be in the public interest, and the claimant had not shown what legal obligation was alleged to have been breached.
The panel directed that remedy for the successful unfair dismissal complaint would be determined at a separate hearing listed for 2 October 2025, with directions for an updated schedule of loss and counter schedule. Issues to be decided at remedy include any compensatory award, contributory fault and Polkey deductions.
PDF text was truncated; the full reasoning on procedural unfairness was not visible.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 referenceSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.