Case 1300623/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mayflower Law Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300623/2021
- Decision date
- 1 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr D McIntosh, Ms J Keene
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final merits hearing took place remotely at Birmingham on 31 October 2022 before Employment Judge Perry, with Mr D McIntosh and Ms J Keene as lay members. The claimant appeared in person and there was no appearance for the respondents.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s complaint that she was subjected to detriments on the ground that she made protected disclosures was not well founded and dismissed it. No further reasoning is set out in the extracted text beyond that finding.
The claimant’s complaints of breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay were recorded as dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not record any award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The complaint that the claimant was subjected to detriments because she made protected disclosures was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint was recorded as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was recorded as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint was recorded as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.