Case 2201761/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 2201761/2019
- Decision date
- 23 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms T Breslin, Mr I McLaughlin
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Ms Kong, was dismissed summarily on 3 December 2018 after a dispute about her handling of the GTOP audit and, in particular, her exchange with Ms Harding on 22-23 October 2018. The tribunal accepted that she had made a series of protected disclosures about the GTOP fund, but it refused her late attempt to amend the case to add individual co-worker whistleblowing claims.
On the whistleblowing detriments case, the tribunal found that Ms Harding's treatment of the Claimant on 22-23 October 2018 was materially influenced by protected disclosures, especially PD3 and PD4. However, that complaint was out of time under s 48(3) ERA 1996 and the Dedman principle. It also held that the dismissal-related detriments were barred by s 47B(2), that the appeal process was not itself a detriment, and that the separate detriment claim therefore failed.
On the dismissal issue, the tribunal found that the principal cause of dismissal was the 22-23 October 2018 incident with Ms Harding. Applying the Jhuti principles, it held that the employer's reason was conduct: the Claimant had questioned Ms Harding's professional awareness/integrity in the meeting and follow-up email, rather than being dismissed because she had made protected disclosures. It rejected the case that the dismissal was for some other substantial reason based on a general breakdown in working relationships.
Although the tribunal accepted conduct as the reason for dismissal, it held the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. No investigation was carried out, the Claimant was not given a disciplinary hearing or an opportunity to answer the allegations, and the ACAS Code of Practice was not followed. The tribunal found no contributory fault, no Polkey deduction, and no reduction for the later-discovered Hotmail emails. It held that any remedy would be subject to a s 207A(2) uplift at the remedy stage. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the Claimant was paid in lieu of notice and accrued holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the standalone detriments claim was out of time under s 48(3) ERA 1996 and the Dedman principle. It found that the 22-23 October 2018 treatment by Ms Harding was materially influenced by protected disclosures, but that complaint was time-barred; detriments b. and c. were barred by s 47B(2) as part of the dismissal itself; detriment d. was not materially influenced by protected disclosures; and detriment e. was not itself a detriment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | This was ordinary unfair dismissal under ss 94-98 ERA 1996. The tribunal rejected the protected-disclosure dismissal case under s 103A, found the principal reason for dismissal was conduct arising from the 22-23 October 2018 Ms Harding incident, but held the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the dismissal was in accordance with the contract because the Claimant was paid in lieu of notice and outstanding accrued holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s 47B(2) ERA 1996 / Timis v Osipov
- s 48(3) ERA 1996
- Dedman principle
- Jhuti principle
- Burchell test
- s 98(4) ERA 1996
- s 207A(2) TULR(C)A 1992
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.