Case 1803877/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Baker v Kirklees College — 2022

Case reference: 1803877/2021
Decision date: 7 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
Venue: Leeds

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Baker v Kirklees College

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing in Leeds on 5 January 2022, Employment Judge Lancaster dismissed all of the claims before the tribunal as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that Mr Baker's claims in cases 1803882/2021 and 1804384/2021 were dismissed, but the supplied text does not identify the underlying causes of action.

In Mr Horrobin's case 1803877/2021, the tribunal rejected the whistleblowing complaint. It held that the alleged disclosure concerning legal rights, a detailed job evaluation, a health and safety risk assessment, or the proposed variation to his contract could not be held to have been made in the public interest. The related complaints that he had been subjected to a detriment because of making such a disclosure were also dismissed.

In case 1804380/2021, the tribunal dismissed Mr Horrobin's dismissal claims brought under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 99, both linked to an asserted infringement of the right to time off for dependants under section 57A. It also dismissed his complaint of direct associative disability discrimination based on the disability of his wife and/or father-in-law. The judgment notes that reasons had been given orally and that written reasons would be provided in due course on request.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The written judgment does not identify the underlying causes of action in cases 1803882/2021 and 1804384/2021; it only states that Mr Baker's claims in those cases had no reasonable prospect of success and were dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	The tribunal held that the alleged qualifying disclosure about Mr Horrobin's legal rights, a detailed job evaluation, a health and safety risk assessment, or the proposed variation to his contract could not be held to have been made in the public interest; the associated detriment claims therefore also failed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Mr Horrobin's dismissal claims under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 99, based on asserted rights to time off for dependants under section 57A, were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	The direct associative disability discrimination complaint, based on the disability of Mr Horrobin's wife and/or father-in-law, was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.

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.