Case 6007280/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007280/2025
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the claimant's claims for protected public interest disclosure detriment and unfair dismissal. The claimant confirmed that she did not pursue disability discrimination claims. The tribunal recorded that she accepted she could not establish who allegedly caused detriment because of disclosures, could not establish causation, and that the detriment claims were on their face out of time; she withdrew those claims and they were dismissed on withdrawal.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal reviewed the respondent's investigation and disciplinary process concerning allegations of falsified placement timesheets and forged assessor entries. It found that the respondent would easily be able to establish a genuine belief in gross misconduct based on reasonable grounds, that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, and that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success.
The unfair dismissal claim was not struck out or finally dismissed. It was made subject to a deposit order under Rule 40, limited to GBP 50 after considering the claimant's means.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claims for detriment because of protected public interest disclosures were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant; the tribunal also stated they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was not finally determined; it was found to have little reasonable prospect of success and made subject to a deposit order of GBP 50. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 40 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43C Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.48(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A(2) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Bowater v North West London Hospitals NHS Trust
- London Borough of Brent v Fuller
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- band of reasonable responses
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.