Case 1602869/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Annice Morris v Bob Gay Plant Hire Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602869/2023
- Decision date
- 26 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bromige
- Venue
- Cardiff ET
- Panel members
- Ms Y Neves, Mr P Pendle
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss Annice Morris
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Annice Morris brought two whistleblowing-related claims: an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 against Bob Gay Plant Hire Limited, and a public interest disclosure detriments claim under s.47B ERA 1996 against Mr Robert Gay. The case was heard at Cardiff Employment Tribunal on 20 and 21 June 2024 before Employment Judge J Bromige, sitting with Ms Y Neves and Mr P Pendle.
The tribunal held that both claims were not well-founded. It dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim against the First Respondent and dismissed the public interest disclosure detriments claim against the Second Respondent.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 against the First Respondent; found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriments claim under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 against the Second Respondent; found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 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.