Case 2201783/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Scanlon v Wilson James Limited London Central via CVP 6, 7 and 10 May 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201783/2020
- Decision date
- 10 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
- Panel members
- Mr G Bishop, Ms K Harr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Scanlon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting before Employment Judge Nicolle with Mr G Bishop and Ms K Harr, heard the matter via CVP on 6, 7 and 10 May 2021. Oral reasons were given on 10 May 2021.
The tribunal held that the claims for detriments and dismissal arising from the Claimant making a qualifying protected disclosure under s.43B(1)(b) or (d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and/or from carrying out health and safety duties under s.44(1)(a) of that Act, failed. Those claims were dismissed.
The separate claim for failing to provide a written statement of employment particulars pursuant to s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 was withdrawn and dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claims for detriments and dismissal on account of the Claimant making a qualifying protected disclosure under s.43B(1)(b) or (d) ERA 1996, or on account of carrying out health and safety at work duties under s.44(1)(a) ERA 1996, failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim for failing to provide a written statement of employment particulars pursuant to s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.43B(1)(b) or (d) ERA 1996
- s.44(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.