Case 6030307/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Morfitt v The Warren of Hull Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6030307/2025
- Decision date
- 7 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
- Venue
- Hull
- Panel members
- Mr N Pearce, Ms N Arshad-Mather
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Morfitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs G Morfitt was unfairly dismissed by The Warren of Hull Limited under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. It dismissed her separate complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of that Act.
One protected disclosure detriment complaint succeeded: the respondent failed to properly investigate a claim against Mrs Morfitt made on 13 February 2025 by an external organisation with whom the respondent works. The tribunal dismissed the remaining protected disclosure detriment complaints.
The tribunal also upheld victimisation complaints concerning that failure to investigate and Mrs Morfitt's dismissal. It dismissed the remaining victimisation complaints and the complaint of harassment related to race. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment records the outcomes without setting out the reasons for them. No remedy or monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment: failing to properly investigate a claim against the claimant made on 13 February 2025 by an external organisation with whom the respondent works. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The remaining protected disclosure detriment complaints were dismissed. They are not individually described in the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to race was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints succeeded concerning the failure to properly investigate the claim made against the claimant on 13 February 2025 and her dismissal. The judgment does not specify the underlying protected act or characteristic. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 103A 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.