Case 6011034/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Shaheen v Midas Manors Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6011034/2024
- Decision date
- 29 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Shaheen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief, saying she had been dismissed because she made protected disclosures about matters including the running of the children's home and issues touching on health and safety and legal obligations. The respondent resisted the application and said the dismissal was related to covert recording of a conversation and gross misconduct.
The tribunal did not make final findings of fact, applying the summary interim relief assessment. It found the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing that she made qualifying protected disclosures to her employer and that the dismissal was because of those disclosures, particularly the July 2024 discussions with Kerry rather than the November 2023 disclosure.
The tribunal considered the explanation for converting a written warning to summary dismissal, the handling of the claimant's grievances, the refusal to allow her back to Mount Royal, and attempts to offer payments for her to leave. It held that the statutory test for interim relief was met and granted interim relief; the respondent would not reinstate or re-engage the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment granted interim relief on the claimant's application under sections 128 and 129 Employment Rights Act 1996. The substantive section 103A unfair dismissal complaint was not finally determined in this decision. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- sections 128 and 129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 95 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- London City Airport Ltd v Chacko [2013] IRLR 610
- Taplin v C Shippam Limited [1978] ICR 1068
- pretty good chance of success
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] ICR 799
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43C Employment Rights Act 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.