Case 1403062/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Knight v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403062/2021
- Decision date
- 13 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr K Sleeth, Mr L Wakeman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Knight
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Self sitting with Mr K Sleeth and Mr L Wakeman, the tribunal recorded that the claimant withdrew the claims of disability discrimination. Those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal dismissed the remaining claims. It found that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim and the unfair dismissal claim pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well-founded. It also found that the protected disclosure detriment claim and the victimisation claim were not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claims of disability discrimination were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The unfair dismissal claim pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim was not well-founded and was dismissed; the protected characteristic or protected act context is not specified in the extracted judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 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.