Case 6011652/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Chandra Brown v The Hamptons Hospital Limited and 1 other — 2024

Case reference: 6011652/2024
Decision date: 13 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge EJ

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mrs Chandra Brown

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent failed to present a valid response in time. The response was received out of time and was not accompanied by an application for an extension of time as required by Rules 21 and 22.

The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22. The complaints of unfair dismissal and detriment for having made Protected Disclosures succeed, with remedy to be determined at a later remedy hearing.

The complaint of victimisation contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 does not succeed. The judgment states that it was not immediately apparent from the Grounds of Claim what was alleged to be the Protected Act.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds. Remedy is to be determined at a later remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Whistleblowing	The judgment states that the complaint of detriment for having made Protected Disclosures succeeds. Remedy is to be determined at a later remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Victimisation	The judgment states that the complaint of victimisation contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 does not succeed because it was not immediately apparent from the Grounds of Claim what was alleged to be the Protected Act.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.