Case 2203405/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms A Holland, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 2203405/2020
Decision date: 21 May 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge A James
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Ms C Ihnatowicz, Mr I McLaughlin

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Ms A Holland, lay representative For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The written judgment records that Mr F T Stacy brought claims against Octavius Finance Limited for whistleblowing detriments under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996, whistleblowing dismissal under s.103A, wrongful dismissal, and unauthorised deduction of wages under s.13 ERA 1996. Each of those claims was not upheld and was dismissed.

The published record does not set out written reasons because it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written decision therefore records the outcomes only and does not include a separate remedy assessment or monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Claim for whistleblowing detriments under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Claim for whistleblowing dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	Claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim for unauthorised deduction of wages under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.