Case 6001716/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Amy Austin-Roberts v Circle Health Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001716/2023
- Decision date
- 5 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Members
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
- Panel members
- Mr G Edmondson, Mr M Alibhai
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Amy Austin-Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAmy Austin-Roberts worked for Circle Health Group Ltd as a Cardiac Lead Theatre Practitioner from 13 March 2023 to 19 July 2023. Earlier direct sex discrimination and victimisation complaints were withdrawn at a case management hearing on 11 July 2024 and were dismissed on withdrawal. The live issues at the final hearing were automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and unpaid company sick pay.
Applying the constructive dismissal principles in Western Excavating and Omilaju, the tribunal found that the claimant's probation should have ended on 12 June 2023 because no concerns had been raised and no proper probation reviews had been carried out. It held that Suzanne Joynes wrongly extended probation on 12 July 2023, which breached clause 1.2 of the contract and the implied term of trust and confidence, but that this was not what caused the claimant to resign. The tribunal found that she resigned for a combination of reasons, including concerns about being blamed for the 19 June 2023 cardiac incident and the Freedom to Speak Up process, frustration about limited flexibility and weekend working, concern about losing cardiac skills, and difficulties with Kelly Holbrook. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
On whistleblowing, the tribunal rejected the alleged disclosure said to have been made on 21 June 2023 and found that the 22 June 2023 Facebook message did not convey the alleged information about the 19 June cardiac incident. It accepted that the disclosures made on 29 June and 12 July 2023 were protected disclosures, but held that the extension of probation and the failure to pay sick pay were caused by poor management rather than by those disclosures. The whistleblowing detriment claim was dismissed.
On wages, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to company sick pay for the period 23 June to 12 July 2023 because she was no longer within probation. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,226.40 gross within 28 days. Because the unlawful deductions claim succeeded, the tribunal did not go on to determine the alternative breach of contract claim relating to non-payment of company sick pay.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaint withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed at the case management hearing before Employment Judge Welch on 11 July 2024. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed at the case management hearing before Employment Judge Welch on 11 July 2024. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal case advanced under ss.103A, 100(1)(c) and 104 ERA 1996; the tribunal found the claimant resigned and was not constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment complaint based on the 29 June and 12 July 2023 disclosures; the tribunal accepted those later disclosures were protected but found no causal link to the detriments. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid company sick pay from 23 June to 12 July 2023; the tribunal found the claimant was entitled to two weeks' company sick pay and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £1,226 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,226
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
15 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Maund v Penwith District Council
- Smith v Hayle Town Council
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board
- Phoenix House Ltd v Stockman
- Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust v Wyeth
- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.13 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.