Case 1308010/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1308010/2019
- Decision date
- 22 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
- Panel members
- Mrs s Bannister, Mr R Virdee
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's protected disclosure case. It held that he was not automatically unfairly dismissed by reason of making a disclosure qualifying for protection, and it also found that he was not subjected to detriment because of such a disclosure.
The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person. However, it concluded that the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of his disability, and consequently the claims of harassment and direct disability discrimination were not well-founded.
The claimant's notice pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal also decided that there were grounds to award costs to the respondent, but declined to exercise its discretion to make a costs award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal rejected the claimant's protected disclosure claims, including automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure and detriment claims based on protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person, but the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability; the harassment and direct disability discrimination claims were therefore not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was dismissed on 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 | Withdrawn | — | — |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.