Case 1601059/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Hong Wen Li v Myddelton College Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 1601059/2019
Decision date: 14 December 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Vernon
Panel members: Mrs K Smith, Mr B Roberts

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Hong Wen Li

Respondent

Myddelton College Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Hong Wen Li brought claims against Myddelton College Ltd in a hybrid hearing before Employment Judge Vernon, sitting with Mrs K Smith and Mr B Roberts, on 7, 8, 9 and 10 December 2020. The claims recorded in the judgment were unfair dismissal under section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996 (health and safety dismissal), unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosure dismissal), detriment under sections 44(1)(c) and 48 Employment Rights Act 1996 (health and safety detriment), and detriment under sections 47B and 48 Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosure detriment).

The tribunal dismissed each of those claims. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and the operative part of the decision consists of the dismissal orders only. The judgment was dated 10 December 2020 and sent to the parties on 14 December 2020.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Claim under section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996 (health and safety dismissal).	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosure dismissal).	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Claim under sections 44(1)(c) and 48 Employment Rights Act 1996 (health and safety detriment).	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Claim under sections 47B and 48 Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosure detriment).	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.