Case 1301827/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Andrew Morton v Tilbury Douglas Construction Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1301827/2017
- Decision date
- 19 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Jones
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr K Hutchinson, Mrs E Shenton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Andrew Morton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Birmingham on 11-15 and 18-19 October 2021 before Employment Judge J Jones, Mr K Hutchinson and Mrs E Shenton. The written judgment records that the respondent name was amended to Tilbury Douglas Construction Limited.
The judgment states that Andrew Morton's claims of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal because of protected disclosures, and detriment on the grounds of protected disclosures all failed and were dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, but it does not include a written explanation of the tribunal's reasoning or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed in the written judgment; oral reasons were given at the hearing and are not reproduced in the written record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | This entry reflects the claim of automatic unfair dismissal because of protected disclosures. It was dismissed in the written judgment, which does not set out the oral reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | This entry reflects the claim of detriment on the grounds of protected disclosures. It was dismissed in the written judgment, which does not set out the oral reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.