Case 6016187/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ekram v East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6016187/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ekram
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ramsden recorded that Mr S Ekram had brought complaints that East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust subjected him to detriment on the grounds that he had made one or more protected disclosures, contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The complaints concerned 16 listed matters, including alleged responses to patient safety concerns, Datix reports, emails about working conditions and patient cases, and matters connected with clinical judgement and CESR verification.
The listed protected disclosure detriment complaints were dismissed upon their withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment does not record findings on the merits of those allegations, does not make any remedy award, and states that the Claimant's other complaints are unaffected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment complaints under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed upon their withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment states that the Claimant's other complaints are unaffected. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 47B of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.