Mr N Khan v Quay Primary Healthcare CIC and Mr P J Campbell: 2407082/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2407082/2023
Between
Mr N KhanClaimant1. Quay Primary Healthcare CIC 2. Mr Patrick John CampbellRespondent
Before
Employment Judge HorneIn person for claimantMr Brien (instructed by counsel) for respondentMr G Price - counsel for respondentDate 27 January 2026
JUDGMENT
The claim against Mr Patrick John Campbell is not struck out. ________________________________ Employment Judge Horne 29 January 2024 ORDER SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 6 February 2024 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Case Number: 2407082/2023 2 of 2 Transcription of Hearings. You can access the Direction and the accompanying Guidance here: Practice Directions and Guidance for Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party makes a request in writing within 14 days of the date when this judgment is sent to the parties. If written reasons are provided, they will be entered onto the tribunal’s online register of judgments, which is visible to internet searches. Case Number: 2407082/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Nahim Khan Respondent:(1) Quay Primary Healthcare CIC(2) Patrick John Campbell Heard at: Liverpool On: 12 13 14 15 16, 19 20 21, 22 & 23 (in chambers) and 26 January 2026. Before: Employment Judge Benson REPRESENTATION: Claimant: in person Respondent: Mr G Price - counsel JUDGMENT[1]The complaint of public interest disclosure detriment against both respondents is not well founded and is dismissed.[2]The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal by reason of public interest disclosure is not well founded as is dismissed.[3]The claimant was dismissed. The complaint of unfair dismissal pursuant to section 94 ERA succeeds.[4]The first respondent shall pay the claimant the following sums (calculated in accordance with the schedule below):(a) A basic award of £2961.00(b) A compensatory award of £1875.00[5]The claimant’s application for a preparation time order is refused. Case Number: 2407082/2023 2 Schedule The basic award is agreed at £2961. The compensatory losses are agreed at £1000 in respect of pension loss and £500 in respect of loss of statutory rights. An uplift of 25% for an unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice was ordered in the sum of £375 (being 25% of £1500). The Tribunal declined to make a reduction by reason of contributory fault or in accordance with the principles in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8. The recoupment provisions do not apply. Approved by: