Case 1303802/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Valentine v Mr P Hardy — 2019
- Case reference
- 1303802/2017
- Decision date
- 2 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Ms S Campbell, Mr P M Davis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Valentine
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss S Valentine had not proven that she made qualifying protected disclosures to Mr P Hardy or to West Atlantic UK Limited, including its employees or agents. On that basis, it held that she did not prove automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA and did not prove whistleblowing detriments under s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that she had not proven discrimination because of her sex under the Equality Act 2010, and had not proven that she suffered a detriment by reason of her membership of a trade union. The proceedings were dismissed in their entirety in the unanimous judgment dated 2 August 2019.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant did not prove that she made qualifying protected disclosures to the respondent or to West Atlantic UK Limited, its employees or agents. The tribunal therefore found that she did not prove automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant did not prove qualifying protected disclosures and therefore did not prove detriments under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant did not prove discrimination because of her sex under the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Trade union | The claimant did not prove that she suffered detriment by reason of her membership of a trade union. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.103A ERA
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Equality Act 2010
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.