Case 1600325/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr. M. Gregory v Kronospan Ltd and 2 others — 2023

Case reference: 1600325/2023
Decision date: 20 June 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge T.V. Ryan
Venue: Mold

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mr. M. Gregory

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At Mold on 19 June 2023, Employment Judge T.V. Ryan recorded that Mr Gregory's wrongful dismissal claim, described in the judgment as a breach of contract claim about notice of termination, was dismissed because he had withdrawn it. The written record contains no substantive determination on the merits of that claim.

The same order disposed of any health and safety related detriment claim under s.44 Employment Rights Act 1996 and any health and safety related dismissal claim under s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996. Those claims were also dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.

The judgment notes that Mr Gregory's continuing health and safety matters were being pursued on the basis of protection for making public interest disclosures. No remedy was awarded in this written record, and the note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons are provided here.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Wrongful dismissal	Described by the tribunal as a wrongful dismissal claim, i.e. a breach of contract claim regarding notice of termination; dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Health and safety related detriment claim under s.44 Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Health and safety related dismissal claim under s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal.	Dismissed	—	—

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.

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.