Case 1600644/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Cox v Gordon Avenue Investments Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600644/2021
- Decision date
- 21 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Z Cox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Miss Z Cox’s claim against Gordon Avenue Investments Limited at Cardiff by video on 14 and 15 March 2022, before Employment Judge G Cawthray. The decision records that the claim was for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, which falls within the whistleblowing/public interest disclosure category.
The tribunal dismissed the claim. The judgment contains no written findings of fact or legal reasoning beyond that outcome. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the extracted record does not set out the tribunal’s reasoning on liability.
No remedy was awarded and no monetary figure is recorded in the judgment. The decision was sent to the parties on 21 March 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the Claimant’s claim of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 fails. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.