Case 6002768/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Ferreira v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002768/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner STRIKE
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs A Ferreira
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the respondent's application on the papers and granted strike-out of the claimant's allegation that she was subjected to whistleblowing detriment by the respondent providing a negative reference to Weymouth Manor Care Home. The claimant did not respond to the initial application and later disagreed with strike-out, but the tribunal recorded that she did not address the specific matters raised by the respondent.
The tribunal found that the available documents included positive evidence from Weymouth Manor Care Home that the claimant was not offered work because of restructuring and that the care home no longer needed to recruit to the role. Taking the claimant's case at its highest, the tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of proving that the respondent had provided the alleged negative reference or that the care home's stated reason was dishonest.
The judgment expressly limited the strike-out to that allegation only. It stated that the claimant's remaining allegations, including any other allegations of detriment under the same case management order paragraph, would continue to a final hearing listed from 19 November 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Only the allegation that the claimant was subject to detriment for whistleblowing by the respondent providing a negative reference to Weymouth Manor Care Home was struck out. The judgment states that remaining allegations continue to a final hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 37 of Schedule 1 of the 2013 Rules
- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Hussain v UPS UKEAT/0221/17/DM
- Ezsias v North
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd t/a Travel Dundee v Reilly
- Romanowska v Aspirations Care Ltd
- Ukegheson v Haringey London Borough Council
- Ahir v British Airways
- Kaul v Ministry of Justice
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.
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.