Case 2203011/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v B and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2203011/2021
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms S Goldthorpe, Mr S Huggins
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the parties' relationship was informal and blurred, involving shared accommodation, cash payments, admitted use of cocaine and crystal methamphetamine, and extensive electronic communications that mixed work, personal, sexual and drug-related content. It preferred contemporaneous documentary evidence, including HMRC records and messaging exchanges, over the claimant's later oral account.
On continuity, the tribunal rejected the claim that the claimant had been continuously employed from 2015 to 2023. It found discrete periods of employment, with the final period running from 1 October 2022 to 25 August 2023, and held that earlier gaps were not bridged by an overarching contract or by temporary cessation of work. The claimant therefore did not meet the two-year qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal.
The tribunal did not accept the claimant's account of the alleged 5 August 2023 incident or his case that he had made a qualifying protected disclosure. It held that the words relied on did not amount to a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996, and that the claimant's messages on 6 and 7 August remained caring and friendly. For the harassment and victimisation claims, the tribunal found the claimant had actively participated in the sexually explicit and drug-related dynamic and that the conduct was not unwanted; it also found no genuine protected act and no causal link between any complaint and the detriments alleged.
The tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was the claimant's own written admissions on 9 August 2023 that Class A drugs had been used at work. Applying the Burchell approach and the band of reasonable responses test, it held the respondents had a genuine belief based on those admissions and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The wrongful dismissal and notice claim failed because the conduct amounted to gross misconduct and no PILON clause was shown. The working time, unlawful deduction, breach of contract and written particulars claims also failed for lack of reliable evidence and entitlement. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996; the tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' continuous service, having only about 11 months from 1 October 2022 to 25 August 2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996; the tribunal found no qualifying protected disclosure on 5 August 2023 and held the dismissal was for admitted workplace drug use. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriments under s.47B ERA 1996; the tribunal found no protected disclosure and no causation, holding that suspension and disciplinary steps followed misconduct admissions rather than any disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under s.26 EqA 2010; the tribunal found the complained-of conduct was not unwanted and that the claimant had actively and willingly participated in the sexually explicit and drug-related exchanges. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under s.27 EqA 2010; the tribunal found no genuine protected act on 5 August 2023 and held that the relevant detriments were caused by the claimant's own misconduct admissions. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Working Time Regulations claim dismissed; the tribunal found the asserted hours were unsupported and inconsistent with HMRC evidence showing other employment during part of the period. |
Legal tests applied
30 references- s.212 ERA 1996
- Carmichael v National Power plc
- Ford v Warwickshire County Council
- Marley v Forward Trust Group Ltd
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods band of reasonable responses
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- s.47B ERA 1996
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- s.26 EqA 2010
- Weeks v Everything Everywhere Ltd
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Delaney v Staples
- Garratt v Mirror Group Newspapers
- Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake
- Mones v Lisa Franklin Ltd
- Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority
- Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd
- Capek v Lincolnshire County Council
- System Floors (UK) Ltd v Daniel
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.