Case 6000239/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hayes v DHU Healthcare C I C — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000239/2023
- Decision date
- 29 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hayes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr J Hayes did not make a protected disclosure as defined in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the whistleblowing allegation could not proceed on the facts stated in the judgment.
The claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for having made protected disclosures were dismissed. The judgment states that those claims had no reasonable prospect of success, so the tribunal disposed of them without any award.
This was a short judgment issued by Employment Judge McTigue on 29 June 2023. No lay members are listed, and the judgment records no monetary remedy or other award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure within section 43B ERA 1996. The detriment claim for having made protected disclosures was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosures was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.