Case 2206663/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr W. Davey v Harrods Ltd. — 2020

Case reference: 2206663/2020
Decision date: 5 November 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Goodman Representation
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr W. Davey

Respondent

Harrods Ltd.

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The hearing concerned the claimant's application for interim relief after dismissal on 4 October 2020. The claimant said the dismissal was because of protected public interest disclosures or health and safety activities, while the respondent said he was dismissed by reason of redundancy.

The tribunal considered the redundancy process, including the respondent's stated reduction in projects, consultation meetings, and scoring matrix. It concluded that, for interim relief, the claimant had difficulty showing to the required high degree that the redundancy was a sham or that the outcome was fixed.

The tribunal also found there was little evidence at this stage that the claimant had been designated to carry out health and safety activities. The application for interim relief did not succeed, but the judgment stated that the claimant still had prospects of success at a final hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The judgment refused interim relief on the protected disclosure dismissal ground; it did not finally determine the underlying unfair dismissal claim.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The judgment refused interim relief on the health and safety activities dismissal ground under section 100 ERA 1996; it did not finally determine the underlying unfair dismissal claim.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

11 references

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.