Case 6004451/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Howarth v NorthWest Youth Services Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6004451/2026
- Decision date
- 7 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Howarth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was a decision on interim relief at a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge M Butler at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 07 May 2026. The claimant represented herself and the respondent was represented by Miss D Ajibade, Senior Litigation Consultant.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief. The written decision records that reasons were handed down orally and states, in short, that the claimant had not established that it was likely that, at a full hearing, she would establish that the reason or principal reason for her dismissal was that she made a protected disclosure.
The tribunal recorded the specific reason for that conclusion in brief terms: the claimant relied on a protected disclosure made after she was dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded in this interim relief decision, and the decision did not finally determine the underlying claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for interim relief refused. The decision did not finally determine the underlying claim; it recorded that the claimant had not established that it was likely she would show at a full hearing that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was a protected 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.