Case 1305074/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305074/2021
- Decision date
- 3 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely at Birmingham on 2 and 3 May 2023 before Employment Judge Dimbylow. The published judgment records four claims: breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998, automatic unfair dismissal for raising a protected qualifying disclosure, and automatic unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right.
Each claim was found to be not well-founded and was dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and the published record contains only the dispositive findings rather than written reasons.
The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no request for written reasons was made within the period mentioned in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim said to arise from raising a protected qualifying disclosure under s.103 Employment Rights Act 1998, as stated in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim said to arise from asserting a statutory right under s.104 Employment Rights Act 1998, as stated in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.103 Employment Rights Act 1998
- s.104 Employment Rights Act 1998
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.