Case 1406257/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Carter v Atelier Homes Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation) and 5 others — 2025

Case reference: 1406257/2023
Decision date: 1 December 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dawson
Venue: Southampton
Panel members: Mr Wakeman, Mr English

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

7 named

Claimant

Mr A Carter

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed by the first respondent and had also been an employee and worker of the second respondent from April 2021 until he resigned from the second respondent on 13 June 2023. He was later dismissed by the first respondent after disciplinary allegations arising from matters including communications sent while suspended, service of statutory demands, and sending personal information to external recipients.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent succeeded on procedural grounds. The tribunal accepted that the dismissing officer genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds, had carried out a sufficient investigation, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. However, the appeal officer did not communicate to the first respondent her actual view that summary dismissal for gross misconduct was not appropriate. The tribunal found that with a fair process the claimant would have been dismissed after a further six weeks and notice, and reduced the unfair dismissal awards by 65% for contributory conduct.

The whistleblowing claims failed. The tribunal found the alleged disclosures about visas were not made before suspension, or that the claimant did not hold the required belief that the information tended to show criminal conduct, breach of legal obligation, or concealment. It also found the alleged insolvency-related disclosures did not amount to protected disclosures. In the alternative, it found the challenged actions were caused by concerns about the claimant's conduct of the business and its finances, or by the dismissing officer's belief in misconduct, rather than by any alleged disclosures.

The notice pay claim against the first respondent succeeded because the claimant was entitled to three months' notice and the tribunal was not satisfied that he was in repudiatory breach of contract. The tribunal also awarded two weeks' pay because the claimant had not been provided with a statement of terms and conditions by the date proceedings commenced.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded against the first respondent because the appeal officer did not communicate her actual conclusion that summary dismissal for gross misconduct was not appropriate. The tribunal found a fair process would have led to dismissal after six weeks plus notice and reduced the basic and compensatory awards by 65% for contributory conduct.	Upheld	—	£3,441
Unfair dismissal	The claimant was not dismissed by the second respondent; he resigned from the second respondent on 13 June 2023 and did not present a constructive dismissal case.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	The tribunal dismissed the protected public interest disclosure claims, finding that the alleged protected disclosures were either not made or did not satisfy the statutory requirements. In the alternative, it found dismissal and alleged detriments were not because of the alleged disclosures.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The notice pay claim against the first respondent succeeded. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant was in repudiatory breach of contract and accepted that he was entitled to three months' notice.	Upheld	—	£11,949
Other	The first respondent did not provide a required statement of particulars of employment, and the tribunal awarded two weeks' pay capped at £643 per week.

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £16,676; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £1,350; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £2,091; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

22 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.