Case 1401030/2020 · Employment Tribunal
- MR R JOHNS (COUNSEL) FOR THE v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401030/2020
- Decision date
- 22 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- MR R JOHNS (COUNSEL) FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's claim that he suffered detriments after making protected disclosures. The judgment records that those claims were not well founded and were dismissed against each respondent under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claim against the first respondent that he was automatically unfairly dismissed pursuant to s103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent was likewise found not well founded and dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim that the claimant suffered detriments following protected disclosures, contrary to s47B Employment Rights Act 1996, against each respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim against the first respondent that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed pursuant to s103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.