Case 1403821/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person assisted by Mr P. White (Uncle) v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1403821/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- Mr R. Virdee, Mr I. Ley
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person assisted by Mr P. White (Uncle)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had made a protected disclosure, which the respondent admitted. It then dismissed the claimant’s claims of automatic constructive unfair dismissal, detriments on the ground of protected disclosure, and wrongful dismissal for failure to pay notice. The judgment extract does not set out detailed reasons for those dismissals beyond the formal outcome.
The judgment also states that the remaining claims were resolved between the parties and were therefore dismissed. Full oral reasons were given at the hearing on 18 September 2024, and any party seeking written reasons was directed to apply within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim is described in the judgment as automatic constructive unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim concerned detriments on the ground of protected disclosure. The respondent admitted that the claimant made a protected disclosure, but the claim was still dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim concerned failure to pay notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment says the remaining claims were resolved between the parties and therefore dismissed, but it does not identify them individually. | 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.