Case 1307568/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hussain v Claim Time Limited trading as Claim Time Solicitors — 2023
- Case reference
- 1307568/2020
- Decision date
- 14 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs Forrest, Mr Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hussain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Birmingham before Employment Judge Flood, Mrs Forrest and Mr Howard on 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 February 2023. Mr D Hussain appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr McGrath of Counsel.
The judgment records two complaints: unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and detriment on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal held that both complaints were not well founded.
Both claims were dismissed. The extracted text states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would be provided as soon as reasonably practicable, but no further findings or remedy award are set out in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was pleaded as unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The detriment complaint for having made a protected disclosure, contrary to section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.