Case 1303038/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T J Barker v Vertu Motors plc (correct respondent: Bristol Street First Investments Limited) FINAL HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303038/2021
- Decision date
- 16 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Members
- Panel members
- Ms J Keene, Mr R White
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T J Barker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Birmingham via CVP before Employment Judge Camp with lay members Ms J Keene and Mr R White. The tribunal identified the correct respondent as Bristol Street First Investments Limited. It recorded that the claimant's entire claim failed.
The tribunal found that the email relied on by the claimant was not a protected disclosure and was not a disclosure by him. On that basis, the whistleblowing claim failed.
The tribunal also found that the email was no part of the reason for the detriment complained of and no part of the reason for dismissal, still less the principal reason. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claimant did not make a relevant protected disclosure because the email relied on was not a protected disclosure and was not a disclosure by him. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the email relied on as a protected disclosure was no part of the reason for dismissal, still less the principal reason. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.