Case 1801108/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v AS&T Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801108/2019
- Decision date
- 18 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Neill Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr W Roberts, Mr D W Fields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Leeds on 17 and 18 September 2019, the tribunal dismissed the claim under section 92 ERA 1996 for failure to provide written reasons. The judgment records that this claim failed.
The tribunal upheld the claim for detriment for having made a protected disclosure. It awarded £3,750 for injury to feelings, described in the judgment as including a 25% uplift.
The tribunal also upheld the unfair dismissal claim under sections 98 and 103A ERA 1996 for having made a protected disclosure. The unfair dismissal award was split into a basic award of £1,350 and a compensatory award of £1,362, both including a 25% uplift, making £2,712 for that claim. The total compensation recorded by the tribunal was £6,462.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim under section 92 ERA 1996 for failure to provide written reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making a protected disclosure; injury to feelings award included a 25% uplift. | Upheld | — | £3,750 |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal under sections 98 and 103A ERA 1996 for having made a protected disclosure; award comprised a basic award of £1,350 and a compensatory award of £1,362, both including a 25% uplift. | Upheld | — | £2,712 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,462
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,350
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,362
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 92 ERA 1996
- section 98 ERA 1996
- section 103A 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.