Case 2207273/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2207273/2020
- Decision date
- 1 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Representations
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was an hourly paid lecturer with a series of separate teaching engagements on fixed-term module contracts. In June 2020 he raised concerns about alleged student academic misconduct and, on 27 June 2020, sent two emails relied on as protected disclosures: one alleging that a second marking form had been issued in his name without authorisation and suggesting forgery, and one sending ten Form O academic offence reports. Applying the statutory test in s.43B ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth and Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed, the tribunal found both emails were qualifying protected disclosures.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found both alleged disclosures on 27 June 2020 were qualifying protected disclosures, but held the effective dismissal date was 15 June 2020, before those disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.43B(1)(a) and (b) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(b) ERA 1996
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850
- Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 979
- Smith v Hale Town Council [1978] IRLR 413
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.