Case 2213442/2023 · Employment Tribunal
A Booth v Ocorian Services (UK) Limited and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 2213442/2023
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Panel members
- Ms S Plummer, Mr S Williams
Parties
4 namedClaimant
A Booth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, who was employed by Ocorian Services (UK) Limited (R1) and registered with the FCA as SMF1, was dismissed with six months' notice on 28 March 2023 and placed on garden leave until 28 September 2023. Prior to dismissal he had submitted a grievance about the conduct of the third respondent, Mr Holmsen, which he characterised as a protected act under s.27 Equality Act 2010 and a protected disclosure under s.43A Employment Rights Act 1996. R1 conceded before the hearing that the dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996, but did not concede the remaining complaints.
The tribunal sat over nine days in September 2024 and considered eight separate allegations giving rise to various legal complaints against the three respondents in different combinations. The Claimant withdrew some of his legal complaints when making closing submissions, and those were dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal records in its judgment which complaints succeeded.
The key complaint that succeeded was that the Claimant's equity treatment on leaving was different, and less favourable than it would otherwise have been, because he had done a protected act and made a protected disclosure. The tribunal noted that this was an adaptation of the allegation contained in the agreed list of issues. Decisions about equity treatment on leaving were made by the Remco committee under the articles of the ultimate holding company, with the practice that the chairman's recommendations were normally followed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | R1 conceded prior to the hearing that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed under s.98 ERA 1996. This was a liability-only hearing; remedy not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the Claimant's equity treatment on leaving was different (and less favourable than it would have been) because he had done a protected act. Described as the key complaint that succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the Claimant's equity treatment on leaving was different (and less favourable than it would have been) because he had made a protected disclosure under s.43A ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Sex discrimination complaints were pleaded in relation to dismissal and other detriments. The truncated text available indicates some complaints were withdrawn at closing submissions and dismissed on withdrawal, while the key succeeding complaint was framed around victimisation/protected disclosure rather than direct discrimination. Outcome on the sex discrimination strand cannot be confirmed from the available text; confidence reduced accordingly. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Sexual orientation discrimination complaints (including alternative case that dismissal was because the Claimant was gay) were pleaded. The available text indicates some complaints were withdrawn at closing submissions and dismissed on withdrawal; the key succeeding complaint was framed around victimisation/protected disclosure. Specific outcome on the sexual orientation strand cannot be confirmed from the available text; confidence reduced accordingly. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43C(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.111(7) EqA 2010
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.