Case 1810298/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Brittain v BAE Coffee Ltd At a preliminary hearing held in public on 5 June 2025 by CVP attended by the claimant (with the assistance of a lay representative) and Ms P Chana (Head of Operations) representing the respondent. — 2025
- Case reference
- 1810298/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wilkinson
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a preliminary hearing in public on 5 June 2025 by CVP, attended by the claimant and a representative for the respondent. Employment Judge Wilkinson recorded that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was misconceived and struck it out under rule 52.
The tribunal made the same order in respect of the claimant's whistleblowing claim, describing it as misconceived and striking it out under rule 52. The judgment does not set out any remedy, because no award was made on these struck-out claims.
The judgment also states that the claimant's remaining claims were unaffected by this decision. It does not determine those remaining claims on their merits in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At a preliminary hearing on 5 June 2025, the tribunal held this claim was misconceived and struck it out under rule 52. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | At a preliminary hearing on 5 June 2025, the tribunal held this claim was misconceived and struck it out under rule 52. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52
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.