Case 1401092/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Astin v University of Southampton — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401092/2023
- Decision date
- 7 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Members
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms R Goddard, Mr L Wakeman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Astin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting in Bristol by video on 29-31 January 2024, unanimously found that Mr C Astin's complaint of being subjected to detriments for making protected disclosures was well-founded and succeeded against the University of Southampton. The judgment records that the claim related to protected disclosures, but does not set out any further split of issues beyond that single whistleblowing detriments complaint.
The Tribunal also found that the acts complained of were to some extent caused or contributed to by the Claimant's own actions, and it reduced compensation by 50% on a just and equitable basis. It ordered the Respondent to pay £3,569.04 for financial losses and £2,172 for injury to feelings, giving a total award of £5,741.04.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of detriments for protected disclosures succeeded; compensation was reduced by 50% for contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | £5,741 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,741
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,569
- compensatory remedy recorded
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.