Case 1801998/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In person v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 1801998/2020
Decision date: 22 November 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Rogerson
Venue: Leeds
Panel members: Mr R Webb

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Employment Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant’s claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was pleaded as a constructive dismissal for making a protected disclosure, but the tribunal found it was not well founded and dismissed it.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure meeting the requirements of section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that he did not reasonably believe the disclosure was made in the public interest, and that he did not reasonably believe it tended to show that a criminal offence had been committed, was being committed, or was likely to be committed, or that a person had failed, was failing, or was likely to fail to comply with a legal obligation.

The judgment was given orally at the hearing and recorded in writing without full reasons being provided. No written reasons were requested within 14 days, so the published record contains the tribunal’s conclusion but not a fuller explanatory judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The claim was brought under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging constructive dismissal for making a protected disclosure. The tribunal found the claimant did not make a protected disclosure within section 43B ERA 1996 and did not reasonably believe the disclosure was made in the public interest or tended to show criminality or a failure to comply with a legal obligation.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.

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.