Case 6028959/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S McLoughlin v The Dash Charity — 2025
- Case reference
- 6028959/2025
- Decision date
- 14 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S McLoughlin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief. The application concerned a claim that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed for a reason specified in section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the tribunal applied the interim relief threshold under sections 128 and 129.
The tribunal was satisfied, on the information available at the interim stage, that the claimant would be able to show she made disclosures, that she believed they tended to show matters within section 43B(1), that the belief was reasonable, and that she would be able to show public interest in relation to the allocation and possible misuse of charitable funds.
The application failed because the tribunal was not satisfied it was likely the claimant would prove a repudiatory breach of contract by the respondent. The judge emphasised that the decision did not determine whether the underlying claim would ultimately succeed or fail.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment decided only the claimant's application for interim relief under sections 128 and 129 Employment Rights Act 1996, which was refused. The tribunal expressly stated it was not deciding whether the underlying claim would succeed or fail. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- sections 128 and 129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
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.