Case 6021596/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Rankine v Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021596/2025
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Rankine
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K Rankine's case against Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust was heard at Leeds by CVP on 22 August 2025 before Employment Judge Maidment. The judgment records that her complaints based on having made a protected disclosure, unauthorised deductions from wages, and seeking damages for breach of contract were dismissed because she withdrew them.
The wording of the judgment carves out holiday pay from the unauthorised deductions complaint by referring to deductions from wages 'save in respect of holiday pay', but it does not state any separate disposal or award for holiday pay. No remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment says the protected disclosure complaint was dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal of it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to unauthorised deductions from wages 'save in respect of holiday pay' and says the complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal; no separate holiday pay outcome is stated. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The damages for breach of contract complaint was dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal of it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.