Case 1401155/2021 · Employment Tribunal
JK represented herself and TL v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401155/2021
- Decision date
- 7 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hay
- Venue
- Southampton Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- J Gillick, N Knight
Parties
1 namedClaimant
JK represented herself and TL
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that both TL and JK had made protected disclosures within s43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It rejected the contention that those disclosures caused the dismissals, so the automatic unfair dismissal claims under s103A were not established.
The tribunal found that the reason for both dismissals was redundancy. On that basis, the ordinary unfair dismissal claims under s98(4) were well founded.
Damages were awarded separately for each claimant. TL was awarded £1,726.10, made up of a £1,673.60 compensatory award and £52.50 for loss of statutory rights. JK was awarded £1,662.50, made up of a £1,162.50 compensatory award and £500.00 for loss of statutory rights.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claimant TL: the tribunal found she had made protected disclosures as defined in s43A ERA 1996, but those disclosures were not the reason for dismissal, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 was not established. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant TL: the tribunal held the dismissal was for redundancy and that the unfair dismissal claim under s98(4) ERA 1996 was well founded. Award: £1,726.10, comprising £1,673.60 compensatory award and £52.50 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £1,726 |
| Whistleblowing | Claimant JK: the tribunal found she had made protected disclosures as defined in s43A ERA 1996, but those disclosures were not the reason for dismissal, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 was not established. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant JK: the tribunal held the dismissal was for redundancy and that the unfair dismissal claim under s98(4) ERA 1996 was well founded. Award: £1,662.50, comprising £1,162.50 compensatory award and £500.00 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £1,663 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,389
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,836
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s43A ERA 1996
- s103A ERA 1996
- s98(4) ERA 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.
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.