Case 2210946/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Veale (Counsel) v Mr A Williams (Solicitor Advocate) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2210946/2022
- Decision date
- 28 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Professor
- Panel members
- Ms S Campbell, Mr R Baber
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Veale (Counsel)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central by CVP on 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 February 2024 before Employment Judge Professor A C Neal, with Ms S Campbell and Mr R Baber as members. The Tribunal unanimously found that Mr J Mullen was unfairly dismissed for having made protected disclosures, and that he was subjected to detriments by the Respondent on the ground that he had made protected disclosures.
The Tribunal also found that the Claimant’s claim alleging unlawful deduction from wages by reference to a bonus payment was not made out and was dismissed. By consent on Day 3 of the hearing, the claim for unpaid holiday pay was made out and the Respondent was ordered to pay £954.00.
The claim alleging unlawful deduction from wages by reference to outstanding salary due was withdrawn on Day 3 and dismissed. The claim alleging breach of contract by reference to notice money due was also withdrawn on Day 3 and dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the Claimant was unfairly dismissed for having made protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal found the Claimant was subjected to detriments by the Respondent done on the ground that he had made protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim alleging unlawful deduction from wages by reference to a bonus payment; the Tribunal found it was not made out and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | By consent on Day 3 of the hearing, the unpaid holiday pay claim was made out and the Respondent was ordered to pay £954.00. | Upheld | — | £954 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim alleging unlawful deduction from wages by reference to outstanding salary due; withdrawn on Day 3 of the hearing and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim alleging breach of contract by reference to notice money due; withdrawn on Day 3 of the hearing and dismissed. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £954
- across all upheld claims
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.