Case 3401488/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs EB Cottrell v NFT Distribution Operations Ltd (In Administration) — 2017
- Case reference
- 3401488/2016
- Decision date
- 15 May 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs EB Cottrell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment, heard at Huntingdon on 4 May 2017 and dated 15 May 2017, is a short record of what the claim form did and did not contain. Employment Judge Moore noted that the claim form did not include a complaint that Mrs Cottrell was dismissed for making a public interest disclosure.
The judgment also records that the claim form did not include a complaint that Mrs Cottrell was subjected to a detriment because she made a public interest disclosure. No merits findings, legal reasoning on whistleblowing liability, or financial remedy are set out in the written record provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not determine a whistleblowing claim on the merits. It records that the claim form does not contain a complaint that the claimant was dismissed for making a public interest disclosure. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not determine a detriment claim on the merits. It records that the claim form does not contain a complaint that the claimant was subjected to a detriment because she made a public interest disclosure. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.