Case 1804846/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Peterken (legal representative) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804846/2020
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds and
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr N Peterken (legal representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds by CVP on 13, 14, 15 and 16 September 2021 before Employment Judge Davies. The claimant was represented by Mr N Peterken and the respondent by Mr J Boyd.
In the judgment sent to the parties on 17 September 2021, the tribunal held that the complaints of unfair dismissal, including the allegation that the dismissal was automatic for making a protected disclosure, were not well-founded and were dismissed. The tribunal also dismissed the wrongful dismissal complaint.
The tribunal further dismissed the complaint that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to the unfair dismissal complaint as including dismissal for making a protected disclosure; this has been mapped separately as a whistleblowing claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Mapped from the complaint for failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal, which is not covered by a more specific claim type in the taxonomy. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.