Case 1601996/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Jones v Legal Support Solutions Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601996/2019
- Decision date
- 24 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Davies determined the case under Rule 21 in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent. On the material before the tribunal, the claimant's claims were upheld on liability only: detriment on the grounds that he made a protected disclosure, unfair dismissal where the principal reason for dismissal was that he made a protected disclosure, and unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of unpaid commission.
The judgment does not set out a detailed findings section beyond those liability conclusions. It records that there was sufficient material to enable a proper determination and that the matter would proceed to a separate remedy hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone, with a time estimate of two hours. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriment on the grounds that the claimant made a protected disclosure. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant made a protected disclosure. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of unpaid commission. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.