Case 2208026/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E McDonald (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 2208026/2017
- Decision date
- 2 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Okafor-Jones
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr E McDonald (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Okafor-Jones sitting alone on 19 September 2018. By consent, the respondent's name was changed to John Lewis Plc.
The claimant's detriment claim and automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosures were withdrawn. The tribunal recorded both as dismissed upon withdrawal and noted that neither party made a costs claim against the other in connection with that withdrawal.
The respondent's applications for strike out and/or a deposit order in relation to the claim for a protective award under section 188 of TULR(C)A 1992 failed and were dismissed. No substantive remedy award was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant withdrew the detriment claim based on protected disclosures; the tribunal recorded it as dismissed upon withdrawal, and neither party sought costs in connection with the withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosures was withdrawn; the tribunal recorded it as dismissed upon withdrawal, with no costs claim by either party in relation to that withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.