Case 6032044/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Etuk v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6032044/2025
- Decision date
- 25 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Etuk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining issue was whether the Respondent breached the Claimant's contract when terminating her employment during her probationary period with one week's notice.
The tribunal found that clause 6.6 of the Respondent's probationary policy was incorporated into the contract, but that the rest of the policy was not. It found that probationary reviews had been conducted and recorded, HR had been consulted, and a final probationary review meeting had taken place before termination.
The tribunal concluded that the Respondent followed the process it was contractually bound to undertake and gave one week's notice in accordance with the contract. The wrongful dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that the Respondent did not breach the Claimant's contract of employment in the timing or manner of dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Hussain v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust 2011 EWHC 1670
- Alexander and ors v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd (No. 2) [1991] IRLR 286
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.