Case 1600308/2022 · Employment Tribunal
S Cren v Firstcom Europe CXP Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600308/2022
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Cren
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant made a protected disclosure by email dated 22 September 2021, but no other protected disclosure. It held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, so his ordinary unfair dismissal claim under ss.94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded.
The tribunal rejected the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the reason for dismissal was not that the claimant had made a protected disclosure, and that claim was dismissed.
By consent, the remedy hearing was adjourned so that the parties could implement agreed settlement terms under which the respondent would pay £16,390.60. The tribunal stated that it had not heard evidence on remedy and had not made a quantum judgment, and that the recoupment provisions did not apply. It also recorded that if no application to restore the case was received by 4 p.m. on 23 December 2022, the remedy claim would be dismissed on deemed withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under ss.94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found the claimant made a protected disclosure by email dated 22 September 2021, but held the reason for dismissal was not that protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,391
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A 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.