Case 6047407/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Alexandra Weinberg v DNA Vetcare Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6047407/2025
- Decision date
- 23 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Alexandra Weinberg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered Dr Weinberg's application for interim relief following dismissal. The application was advanced on the basis that she had raised health and safety concerns said to amount to protected disclosures, and that interim relief was available only if the tribunal considered it likely that the protected disclosure dismissal claim would succeed.
Employment Judge Fowell reviewed the available papers and noted concerns raised by Dr Weinberg about matters including drug storage, x-ray badges, and health and safety issues, alongside other concerns about working arrangements, equipment, pricing, training, leave, and the nature of her role. The timing of the dismissal after meetings and an abandoned operation was said to suggest a possible connection.
The tribunal concluded that, at this preliminary stage and without full evidence, it could not be sufficiently confident that the dismissal was because of the health and safety concerns rather than other factors or a combination of factors. The interim relief application was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment supplied in the prompt is truncated. The tribunal dismissed an application for interim relief in a claim put on the basis of alleged protected disclosures; it did not finally determine the underlying whistleblowing dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- sections 128 and 129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- pretty good chance
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- rule 94 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- 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.