Case 2204860/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Litigant in Person not in attendance For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204860/2023
- Decision date
- 5 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Litigant in Person not in attendance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing at London Central on 5 May 2023, before Employment Judge Gidney, the Tribunal heard Mr Francis Sutton's application for interim relief. The claimant was a litigant in person and was not in attendance; the respondent was represented by counsel. The written judgment records that the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was 'likely' that, on determining the complaint to which the application related, it would find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that specified in s103A ERA 1996.
The Tribunal therefore refused the application for interim relief. The judgment states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written judgment being sent to the parties. The written record does not finally determine the underlying whistleblowing dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application only. The Tribunal refused the application after finding it was not likely that, on determining the complaint, it would find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that specified in s103A ERA 1996. The written judgment does not finally determine the underlying dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s103A ERA 1996
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.