Case 1400856/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Lee v Leofric Building Systems Ltd and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400856/2021
- Decision date
- 5 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
- Panel members
- Mr K Sleeth, Mr D Stewart
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr T Lee
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for Leofric Building Systems Ltd from 22 April 2019 until his summary dismissal on 11 January 2021. The tribunal found that he raised Covid-19-related health and safety concerns on 5 and 6 January 2021, including cleaning, towels, face masks, distancing and sanitiser, and that his conversation with Mr Green on 6 January was a qualifying disclosure within s43B(1)(d) ERA 1996 because it tended to show that health or safety was likely to be endangered. The tribunal did not accept that the disclosure fell within s43B(1)(b), but it did accept that the claimant had raised health and safety concerns by reasonable means.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment under s47B ERA 1996 against R1, R2 and R3. The tribunal found the claimant made a qualifying disclosure to Mr Green on 6 January 2021 about Covid-19 health and safety matters, but it was not satisfied that the specific disclosure was a material factor in the 8 January threat or in the dismissal decision. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996 against R1. The tribunal accepted that the claimant made a protected disclosure, but found no sufficient evidence that Mr Hammond knew of the disclosure to Mr Green or that the disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s100(1)(c) ERA 1996 against R1. The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant had brought health and safety concerns to his employer's attention by reasonable means. The judgment's opening summary states £18,845.69, but the detailed remedy arithmetic and the net figure of £13,278.83 align with £18,854.69. | Upheld | — | £18,855 |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of the main terms of employment contrary to s1 ERA 1996 against R1. | Upheld | — | £1,326 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,605
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £18,855
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro
- Goode v Marks and Spencer plc
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
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.