Case 1402389/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Mrs S. Hornblower — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402389/2022
- Decision date
- 20 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- Mr I. Ley, Ms R. Barrett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Exeter before Employment Judge Smail, with lay members Mr I. Ley and Ms R. Barrett, and heard the matter on 25-29 September 2023. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr R. Wagstaff, brought claims against Lidl Great Britain Ltd under the headings of breach of contract, public interest disclosure, unfair dismissal and working time regulations, and that those claims were dismissed on 29 September 2023.
The extracted text does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning, findings of fact, or any separate disposal by claim type. It states only that full oral reasons were given at the hearing and that any party seeking written reasons had to apply within 14 days of the judgment being sent on 20 October 2023. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment does not set out separate reasons for this claim; it records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The extracted judgment does not set out separate reasons for this claim; it records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment does not set out separate reasons for this claim; it records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment does not set out separate reasons for this claim; it records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.