View source for Dr A Malik v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd (reconsideration) (2021) MHLO 7 (ET)

{{Case
|Date=2022-01-06
|Court=Employment Tribunal
|Judges=Warren, B McCaughey, G Barker
|Parties=Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd, Ambreen Malik, Cygnet
|Judicial history first case=Dr A Malik v CAS (Cygnet) Behavioural Health Ltd (2021) UKET 2403141/2018
|Sentence=Unfair dismissal and whistleblowing
|Summary=The claimant sought reconsideration as the original decision contained no specific decision in relation to one of the argued detriments, part 1 of which was her suspension in relation to administration of covert medication, and part 2 of which was the inadequate appeal against dismissal. Part 1 was presented out of time but part 2 was presented in time. The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that its [[Article 6]] rights would be breached by a finding being made months after the trial, but went on to decide that the appeal was part of the dismissal so was excluded as a detriment and, an any event, was not motivated by the public interest disclosures.
|External links=*[https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/dr-ambreen-malik-v-cas-behavioural-health-ltd-and-signet-healthcare-ltd-2403141-slash-2018 Gov.uk: transcript]
|Subject=Miscellaneous cases
|Judgment=(2021) MHLO 7 (MPT).pdf
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2024-12-02 09:52:52 PM
}}