Case 1307592/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J E Jagger v Prime Electrical Servies Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1307592/2024
- Decision date
- 18 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J E Jagger
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure were not well-founded and were dismissed. It also recorded that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The separate complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. The complaint of failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars was dismissed upon withdrawal. The written judgment states that reasons were given orally and does not set out further findings or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaints of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The complaint of failure to provide written statement of employment particulars was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.