Case 1808929/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sinnott v Bentley West End Sports and Social Club Ltd Heard at Leeds by CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808929/2023
- Decision date
- 10 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr K Lannaman, Mr W Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sinnott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint because it was presented outside the time limit in s111 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. It upheld two protected-disclosure detriment complaints: the removal of cover shifts in August 2023 and a November 2023 letter about timekeeping and performance. The remaining complaints of detriment for making a protected disclosure were dismissed.
The tribunal also found that, when the claim was presented, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. It considered that there were no exceptional circumstances making a 2-week pay award inequitable, and it did not award 4 weeks' pay.
On remedy, the tribunal found that the detrimental treatment caused the claimant's resignation but that he had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate his losses. It concluded that, had he done so, he would have obtained equivalent work within 6 weeks. It awarded £125.04 for the cover shifts taken off him, £333.44 for the 6-week loss period plus the 2-week uplift for the written statement breach, and £2,200 for injury to feelings, giving a total award of £2,658.48.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was presented out of time under s111 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The detriment complaints based on protected disclosure were partly upheld: the removal of cover shifts in August 2023 and the November 2023 letter about timekeeping and performance succeeded, while the remaining protected-disclosure detriment complaints were dismissed. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars and made a 2-week pay uplift award rather than 4 weeks. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,658
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £458
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- mitigation of loss
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.