Case 1403841/2021 · Employment Tribunal
- MR T O’BRIEN FOR THE v Sol Attendance Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403841/2021
- Decision date
- 20 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- MR T O’BRIEN FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was entered to the claimant's claim that she was automatically unfairly dismissed pursuant to s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal entered judgment for the claimant under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal held that some claimed heads of loss were not recoverable because the only claim before it related to dismissal, not pre-dismissal whistleblowing detriment or sickness absence during employment. It also found that an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice was not applicable.
For remedy, the tribunal awarded post-dismissal loss of earnings only up to February 2022, when the claimant became unable to work following a health incident, plus loss of statutory rights and injury to feelings for having been dismissed for whistleblowing. The total award was £15,601.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Judgment entered under rule 21 for automatic unfair dismissal pursuant to s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal described the dismissal as for whistleblowing. | Upheld | — | £15,601 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,601
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,601
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.