Case 6007372/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Haider v Bromley Healthcare Ltd RECONSIDERATION — 2026
- Case reference
- 6007372/2026
- Decision date
- 29 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Haider
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Evans refused Ms D Haider's application dated 13 June 2026 to reconsider the rejection of her claim against Bromley Healthcare Ltd. Her application described whistleblowing detriment, victimisation, health and safety breaches and CQC governance failures. The tribunal's decision concerned the requirements for presenting the claim, without deciding the merits of those complaints.
Ms Haider presented her claim on 28 February 2026. The early conciliation number on her claim form differed from the number on the Acas certificate she supplied on 4 March 2026. That certificate was issued on 4 March, after the claim had been presented. The tribunal rejected the claim on 4 June 2026 under Rule 13(1)(a), finding that it lacked jurisdiction because she had not obtained a certificate before presenting it.
Ms Haider explained that she had contacted Acas before submitting her claim and had decided to proceed urgently to the tribunal. She asked the tribunal to accept the claim in the interests of justice. The judge found that she had not sought to rectify the defect by validly presenting a claim after obtaining the certificate, and therefore considered only whether the original rejection was wrong. As she had not requested a hearing, the application was decided without one under Rule 14(3).
Applying section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd [2022] EAT 61, the judge held that prior contact with Acas did not overcome the absence of a certificate when the claim was presented. Obtaining the certificate shortly afterwards did not change the jurisdictional position. The original rejection was therefore correct, and reconsideration was refused on 29 July 2026. The judgment recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Reconsideration of the claim's rejection under Rule 13(1)(a) was refused. The claimant presented her claim before obtaining an Acas early conciliation certificate. No merits determination was made. The application also mentioned victimisation, health and safety breaches and CQC governance failures, but the judgment did not identify or determine separate statutory claims concerning those matters. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 13(1)(a), Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 14, Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Section 18A(1) and (8), Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd [2022] EAT 61
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.