Case 3328187/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Finn v St Andrews Healthcare — 2019
- Case reference
- 3328187/2017
- Decision date
- 14 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr Bone, Mr Schooler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Finn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bury St Edmunds on 10 to 14 June 2019 before Employment Judge M Warren with members Mr Bone and Mr Schooler, found that Mr N Finn’s claims succeeded. The written judgment records that his claims that he was subjected to detriment and unfairly dismissed because he had made protected disclosures were upheld.
The tribunal did not set out its reasons in the written record because reasons had been given orally at the hearing. It directed that the remedy to which Mr Finn is entitled would be determined at a separate remedy hearing at Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal on 4 November 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim that the claimant was subjected to detriment because he had made protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because he had made protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.