Case 2206052/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Healey v Jubilee Tourist Information Centre Ltd (t/a Covent Garden FX) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206052/2022
- Decision date
- 24 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr P Healey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Norris, sitting alone at Central London on 22-24 March 2023, dismissed the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract as not well-founded. The judgment records that those claims failed in full and does not specify any monetary award or remedy.
The tribunal also found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure in or around early 2021. On that basis, his claims of detriment for making a protected disclosure were struck out to the extent that they had not been withdrawn. No further findings or remedy were recorded in the written judgment, which notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure in or around early 2021. The detriment claims for making a protected disclosure were struck out to the extent they were not withdrawn. | Struck out | — | — |
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.