Case 6013689/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Hogg v Lincolnshire Integrated Voluntary Emergency Services (LIVES) — 2024
- Case reference
- 6013689/2024
- Decision date
- 18 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh Representation
- Venue
- Lincoln
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Hogg
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant applied for interim relief in a claim arising from alleged unfair dismissal and detriment because of protected disclosures. She said she had raised health and safety concerns about patients and that the Respondent's disciplinary investigation and related matters were detriments linked to those disclosures.
The Tribunal considered whether the Claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing the required elements at a final hearing. It found that the claim was not clearly set out at this stage, including the alleged protected disclosures, alleged detriments, and the asserted link between them.
The Tribunal also noted factual conflicts that could not be resolved without full witness evidence. It refused interim relief, making clear that this was not a finding on the facts or a final determination of the substantive claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refused the Claimant's application for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It did not finally determine the substantive unfair dismissal or protected disclosure allegations. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- pretty good chance
- constructive dismissal
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.