Case 1601375/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Moss v Athena Care Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601375/2020
- Decision date
- 14 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Members
- Panel members
- Ms C Izzard, Mr M Vine
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Moss
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Moss’s case against Athena Care Group Limited was heard at Cardiff and remotely by CVP on 7, 8, 9 and 10 September 2021 before Employment Judge R Brace sitting with Ms C Izzard and Mr M Vine. In the unanimous judgment dated 10 September 2021, the tribunal held that the complaints of automatic unfair dismissal following a protected disclosure under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and/or related to health and safety under s.100(1)(c) and/or s.100(1)(e) were not well founded and were dismissed.
The written record does not set out the tribunal’s reasoning. It states that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested under the tribunal rules. No monetary award was made because the claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The complaint was framed as automatic unfair dismissal following a protected disclosure under s.103A ERA 1996 and/or related to health and safety under s.100(1)(c) and/or s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996. It was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.100(1)(e) 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.