Case 2212195/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Phil Driver v Thames Spark Group Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2212195/2022
- Decision date
- 24 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Panel members
- Mr Carroll, Mr Secher
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Phil Driver
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an electrician at Thames Spark Group Ltd, raised asbestos concerns at the Fanshaw Street site from 2021 onwards. The tribunal found that he was genuinely and reasonably concerned about asbestos in the basement, that he took a sample himself on 25 March 2022 which tested positive, and that this was a qualifying protected disclosure made in the public interest. It also found that his 21 July 2022 WhatsApp message about asbestos flash guards and PPE, and his 3 August 2022 message saying the relationship had deteriorated since he refused to work with hazardous materials, were protected disclosures and health and safety actions.
On detriment, the tribunal upheld the complaints only in part. It found that the cancellation of the May 2022 meetings, the August 2022 disciplinary letters and process, and the dismissal itself were materially influenced by the asbestos-related actions and disclosures. It rejected the complaints about the MOT issue, the temporary use of the claimant’s own car, delayed August pay, outstanding expenses, holiday pay, and the subject access request, finding no relevant causal link or no detriment in those matters.
The tribunal held that the dismissal on 30 September 2022 was also a protected-disclosure detriment as against Mr Ross under s.47B(1A), but it did not decide the separate automatic unfair dismissal complaint under ss.100, 103A and 104 because of its earlier findings. It found that the March 2022 fuel expense claim was not shown to be fraudulent or dishonest, so the summary dismissal was wrongful because the contract required two weeks' notice and no just cause was made out.
Other claims failed or were admitted only in principle. The pension-contributions complaint failed because the tribunal said compulsory pension enrolment was for the Pensions Regulator and it had no jurisdiction to decide that issue. The section 8 payslip complaint failed because the claimant had received all payslips, albeit sometimes late, and the statute only addresses missing or defective statements. The expenses and untaken holiday pay claims were admitted in principle, but the extracted reasons do not record a quantified monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Health and safety detriment complaint under s.44 ERA 1996 against R1. The tribunal upheld it only for detriments 14(iv)-(vi), which it identified as the cancellation of meetings in May 2022, and rejected the remaining alleged detriments. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment complaint under s.47B(1) ERA 1996 against R1. The tribunal upheld it only for detriments 16(iv)-(vi), relating to the cancelled meetings and disciplinary process after the asbestos-related disclosures, and rejected the other alleged detriments. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment complaint under s.47B(1A) ERA 1996 against R2. The tribunal upheld it for detriments 16(iv)-(vi) and 16(xiv), the last being dismissal on 30 September 2022; it said R1 was liable for those detriments in addition to R2. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal claim against R1. The tribunal found the March 2022 fuel expense claim was not shown to be fraudulent or dishonest, so there was no just cause for summary dismissal under the contract and the Claimant was entitled to two weeks' notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Pension contributions complaint. The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to determine compulsory pension enrolment or contributions; the Claimant had not opted into the scheme and enforcement lay with the Pensions Regulator. |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- NHS Manchester v Fecitt and others
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw
- Darnton v University of Surrey
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board
- Chesterton Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed & Anor
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
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.