Case 2205307/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Thompson v Ultra Serve Europe Limited London Central via CVP 19 to 25 May 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 2205307/2019
- Decision date
- 25 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
- Panel members
- Mr S Hearn, Ms S Pendle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Thompson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London Central by CVP from 19 to 25 May 2021 before Employment Judge Nicolle, with Mr S Hearn and Ms S Pendle. The claimant, Mr L Thompson, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. Oral reasons were given on 25 May 2021.
The claim that the claimant had been automatically unfairly dismissed under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because he had made a qualifying protected disclosure under section 43B(1)(b) or (d) failed and was dismissed. The tribunal also rejected the disability discrimination claims, namely discrimination arising in consequence of disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and direct disability discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text. The written record states only that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of sending the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim for automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 based on alleged protected disclosure under s.43B(1)(b) or (d) was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claims for discrimination arising in consequence of disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 and direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43B(1)(b) and (d) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
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.