Case 1400452/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K O'Connor v Mr Liam John Brooke and 1 other — 2020

Case reference: 1400452/2019
Decision date: 26 November 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Craft Appearances
Venue: Southampton

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr K O'Connor

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the preliminary hearing in Southampton on 9, 10 and 11 November 2020, before Employment Judge Craft, the tribunal determined a preliminary issue on the Claimant's alleged disclosures under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that the Claimant had made qualifying disclosures within the terms of s.43B in relation to paragraphs 1(a)(i), (iii) and (iv) of the agreed directions for the hearing.

The tribunal dismissed the alleged disclosure at paragraph 1(a)(ii) and recorded that the allegation at paragraph 1(a)(v) had been withdrawn. The judgment did not determine liability for any substantive claim or assess remedy. The case was to be listed for a telephone case management preliminary hearing to discuss and direct the further orders needed to set the matter down for a full hearing.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the Claimant made qualifying disclosures within s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to paragraphs 1(a)(i), (iii) and (iv) of the agreed directions. The alleged disclosure at paragraph 1(a)(ii) was dismissed, and the allegation at paragraph 1(a)(v) was withdrawn. No final merits decision or remedy was determined at this hearing.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.