Case 1402894/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S Garnett v ABM Facility Services UK Ltd (sued as “ABM”) — 2019

Case reference: 1402894/2018
Decision date: 4 September 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Midgley Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr S Garnett

Respondent

ABM Facility Services UK Ltd (sued as “ABM”)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant brought claims that he was unfairly dismissed either because he made a protected disclosure under s.103A ERA 1996 or because he raised concerns of a health and safety nature under s.100(c) ERA 1996.

Following a preliminary hearing on 16 July 2019, the claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £200 in respect of each of those claims. The order was sent on 5 August 2019 and the deposit sums had to be paid by 26 August 2019.

The claimant failed to pay the deposits. The tribunal struck out the complaints under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The judgment describes the claim as unfair dismissal because the claimant made a protected disclosure under s.103A ERA 1996; it was struck out for non-payment of a deposit.	Struck out	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The judgment describes the claim as unfair dismissal because the claimant raised health and safety concerns under s.100(c) ERA 1996; it was struck out for non-payment of a deposit.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.