Case 3327285/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Kirdei v Mega Resources Limited trading as Mega Nursing & Care — 2020
- Case reference
- 3327285/2017
- Decision date
- 14 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Members
- Venue
- Cambridge County Court
- Panel members
- Mr C Davie, Mr R Eyre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Kirdei
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Cambridge County Court on 10, 11, 13 and 14 February 2020 before Employment Judge Foxwell with lay members Mr C Davie and Mr R Eyre. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £20.60 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. That was the only monetary award recorded in the judgment.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's whistleblowing claims: the claim of detriment for making public interest disclosures under s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the claim of automatic unfair dismissal for making public interest disclosures under s.103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, both being found not well-founded.
It also dismissed the age-related claims, namely harassment related to age and direct discrimination because of age, both as not well-founded. No further factual findings or remedy calculations are set out in the written record beyond these dispositive outcomes.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £20.60. | Upheld | — | £21 |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriment for making public interest disclosures under s.47B ERA 1996; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making public interest disclosures under s.103A ERA 1996; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Age-related harassment claim dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct discrimination because of age claim dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.47B 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.