Case 1401197/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Demetri Lewis v AND Together for Mental Wellbeing Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401197/2025
- Decision date
- 6 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Demetri Lewis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge N J Roper, sitting under rule 22 with no response from the respondent, found that the claimant was constructively dismissed on 12 March 2025 having raised concerns about an unsafe working environment with a supervisor in whom he had no faith. Although the claimant had insufficient continuity of service for ordinary unfair dismissal, the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the principal reason for resignation was a circumstance of danger which the claimant reasonably believed to be serious and imminent.
The complaint of breach of contract for one week's notice pay was upheld at £449.66. The victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 failed because the claimant's formal grievance did not amount to a protected act. Health and safety detriment and protected disclosure claims were dismissed on withdrawal.
A compensatory award of £11,048.31 was uplifted by 15% under section 207A TULR(C)A 1992 for the respondent's lengthy failure to deal with the grievance, giving £12,705.58. Recoupment Regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | One week's net statutory notice pay. | Upheld | — | £450 |
| Victimisation | Section 27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation claim not well-founded; the formal grievance did not amount to a protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(d) Employment Rights Act 1996 (health and safety reasons - constructive dismissal). Total compensation £11,048.31 with 15% ACAS uplift. Insufficient continuity of service for ordinary unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 was held. | Upheld | — | £12,706 |
| Other | Claim for detriment for health and safety reasons under section 44 ERA 1996 dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claims for detriment and/or unfair dismissal arising from protected public interest disclosures under sections 47B and 103A ERA 1996 dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,155
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £12,706
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100(1)(d) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 20
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.