Case 1810623/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Michael Blackburn v WW Estates (Bolton Junction) Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1810623/2024
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Drake Signed
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Michael Blackburn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge R S Drake on 4 April 2025. The claimant, represented by Mr D O'Brien, confirmed that he could not pursue the public interest disclosure detriment claim. The tribunal therefore recorded that claim as dismissed on withdrawal.
The judgment also records that the claims against the second respondent, Ian Waterhouse, were dismissed. The reasons state that REJ Robertson had already rejected registration of the claims against that respondent by notice dated 7 February 2025, and the dismissal was entered for completeness.
The claimant accepted that the remaining complaints were unfair constructive dismissal and breach of contract, and the judgment records that those complaints remained extant and would be considered by an Employment Judge sitting alone. No merits findings or remedy awards were made in this hearing, and the respondent consented to the withdrawal/dismissal terms.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant's claims against the second respondent were dismissed for completeness after Notice dated 7 February 2025 had already rejected registration of the claims against that respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant confirmed, on advice, that he could not pursue the public interest disclosure detriment claim; the tribunal recorded it as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.