Case 1804887/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bakhsh (consultant) For the v Mr J Gilbert (consultant) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804887/2019
- Decision date
- 21 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr G Harker, Mr DW Fields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bakhsh (consultant) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Leeds, Employment Judge JM Wade sat with Mr G Harker and Mr DW Fields and heard the case on 17-21 February 2020. The judgment records that Mr J Fite brought complaints against First 4 Care Limited arising from protected disclosures.
The tribunal held that the claimant's first two complaints of protected disclosure detriment succeeded. It dismissed the claimant's third complaint, which concerned pay. The extracted judgment records these outcomes only and does not set out a monetary award in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | First complaint of protected disclosure detriment succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Second complaint of protected disclosure detriment succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Third complaint, concerning pay, was dismissed. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.