Case 6018307/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S. Crabb v Nuffield House Surgery — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018307/2024
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S. Crabb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an application for interim relief by Mrs S. Crabb arising from her complaint that her dismissal on 6 November 2024 was automatically unfair because it followed protected disclosures. The Respondent applied for a postponement on 7 March 2025, but the Tribunal refused it because there were no special circumstances and the next available hearing date, 23 May 2025, would have caused unacceptable delay. The hearing went ahead by CVP with submissions only; there was no oral evidence.
The Claimant said that on 11 September 2024 she raised concerns that the surgery was operating under expired Patient Group Directives. The Respondent accepted that she had made a disclosure of information, that it tended to show matters within s.43B(1) ERA 1996, and that it was made in the public interest. The Tribunal was satisfied that there was a pretty good chance she would also show that her belief in the public interest was reasonable. It approached the application on the summary basis required by the interim relief authorities, including Taplin v C Shippam Ltd, London City Airport Ltd v Chacko, and Robinson.
The principal issue was whether the protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal. The Tribunal did not find the Respondent's explanation about an Enhanced Practice Nurse role and an ARTP qualification persuasive. It relied on the written contract, which described the Claimant as an "Advanced Clinical practitioner" and provided for four days at Nuffield House Surgery and one day at Sydenham House Surgery, which was inconsistent with the Respondent's case that she did not work Wednesdays. The Tribunal also noted that the dismissal letter did not say that lack of ARTP qualification was the reason for dismissal, and that Dr Kehinde had tried to reduce the Claimant's hours a week after the disclosure. On the material before it, the Tribunal found that the Claimant had a pretty good chance of showing that the principal reason for dismissal was her protected disclosure and granted interim relief, ordering continuation of the contract and payment of £29,362.50 for 7 November 2024 to 7 March 2025, followed by weekly wages of £1,687.50 until final determination or settlement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief granted under s.128 ERA 1996 on the basis that the Claimant had a pretty good chance of showing that her dismissal was because of protected disclosures under s.103A ERA 1996. The order also required continuation of employment and weekly wages of £1,687.50 from 10 March 2025 until final determination or settlement. | Upheld | — | £29,363 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,363
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.128(1)(a)(i) ERA 1996
- s.129(1) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- London City Airport Ltd v Chacko
- His Highness Sheikh Bin Sadr al Qasimi v Robinson
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.