Case 1400585/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Josen Respondent; SECOM PLC v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400585/2023
- Decision date
- 19 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr P Josen Respondent; SECOM PLC
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief after presenting a claim that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed under section 103A ERA 1996 because he had made protected disclosures about health and safety and electrical wiring concerns. The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing despite the claimant's limited participation, considering the documentary material and submissions before it.
The Tribunal considered it likely that the claimant's communications about wiring and safety issues would be found to be protected disclosures at a final merits hearing. However, it considered it unlikely that those complaints, or the references to health and safety and wiring matters, were the cause of dismissal.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of success in showing that the protected disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief in relation to an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996. It did not finally determine the underlying claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.129(1) ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068
- London City Airport Ltd v Chackro [2013] IRLR 610
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Kuzel v Roche Products [2008] ICR 799
- Salisbury NHS FT v Wyeth UKEAT/0061/15
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro v Geduld UKEAT/1095/09
- Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] ICR 1026
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.